Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss representations on behalf of miners who are still dismissed as a result of incidents during the 1984–85 industrial dispute; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I meet the chairman regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Mr. Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Scottish group of Labour Members is incensed by the cursory and dismissive letter from the chairman of the board on this issue? Does he recognise that 130 miners and their families in Scotland are still suffering from the dispute, and that they have the support of a broad range of opinion, including local authority representatives, the police and the churches? Will he ask the board, particularly in Scotland, to adopt a more compassionate approach?

Mr. Walker: Of those dismissed during the strike, 75 have been reinstated and a number of others are appearing

before industrial tribunals, which are making various decisions. This is a matter for the management, who must decide on each case.

Mr. Mason: How many of those miners sacked at the conclusion of the strike still wish to be reinstated? The figure must run into hundreds. They lost 12 months wages during the strike and nearly another 12 months while on the dole. Is not victimisation being taken too far? What is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do to try to help these men?

Mr. Walker: I watched what happened during the dispute and I have never agreed that all those who took part in the dispute had a right to return, irrespective of whether they caused violence or damage.

Mr. Barron: Does the Secretary of State accept that the call for the men to go before industrial tribunals was made from the Government Dispatch Box? When those tribunals find that men have been unfairly dismissed by the Coal Board, should he not make the Coal Board take them on again? Some of my constituents were found to have been unfairly dismissed, but months later they are still labouring in the dole queues in south Yorkshire.

Mr. Walker: If a tribunal suggests that a person's job should be restored and the employer, whether the Coal Board or anyone else, decides not to reinstate, compensation is available. The hon. Gentleman and many others suggest that all miners should be restored to their previous positions, but some tribunals have rejected that proposition.

Mr. Eadie: The Secretary of State and others on the Government Front Bench have advised aggrieved miners to go to an industrial tribunal. Some industrial tribunals find that men are unfairly dismissed and suggest that they be given back their jobs. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that parading a bogus neutrality before the House offends opinion everywhere?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman says that if a Labour Government were in power they would decide whether an employee should be kept on. That has never happened under a Labour Government, nor do I think it would happen if a Labour Government were in power.

Wind Energy

Mr. Chope: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the objectives of his Department's policy on wind energy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): We currently consider wind energy to be the most promising renewable energy source for electricity generation in the United Kingdom. Our policy is to demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of large wind turbines, to assess their environmental impact and to encourage research and development aimed at cost reductions and improved performance.

Mr. Chope: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is enormous export potential in this area? Is he aware that a company in my constituency has earned £2·5 million in the last year by making wind turbine blades for export? Will he ensure that research programmes are properly funded so that we can maximise our export potential?

Mr. Hunt: I am pleased to endorse my hon. Friend's remarks and to pay tribute to the company in his constituency. Since 1979 the Government have spent more than £16 million on research and development into the use of wind energy. For the current financial year, our estimated spend is more than £6·5 million.

Mr. O'Brien: In view of the Minister's reply, will he explain why the installation of a wind turbine at Richborough is not yet on stream, even though planning consent was given in 1984? What minor altrerations must be made to the planning consent so that it can come on stream?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to draw that conclusion. A number of developments are proceeding. This country is in the van of technological and technical advances.
On the Richborough development, we recently announced departmental support for the 1MW machine to be built by James Howden and Company Ltd.

Mr. Rost: Will my hon. Friend carefully consider the complaints from one or two private generators of wind power that they are not receiving from area boards the fair deal to which they are entitled under the Energy Act? If he does not deal with that problem, potential will be put at risk.

Mr. Hunt: I am as anxious as my hon. Friend to realise potential. I shall certainly consider any cases that he brings to my attention.

Alternative Energy Supplies

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about recent increases in public funds for research into alternative forms of energy; and what have been the results therefrom.

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the level of funding proposed for research into alternative sources of energy in 1986–87.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): The Government have identified what we believe to be the most promising renewable energy technologies, and major support will be

given for their development. Expenditure on the renewable energy programme is currently running at about £14 million a year.

Mr. Chapman: I welcome the increase in Government funds for research and the fact that more than 400 projects are being supported. Which research programmes show the most hope for renewable forms of energy that will make a significant contribution to our energy demands —apart from wind, which has already been mentioned?

Mr. Goodlad: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition of the very substantial increase in funding for research and development into renewables. He referred to the very important advances in wind energy, as described by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
A further major achievement of departmentally funded research and development has been the establishment of a passive solar design and the use of waste as a fuel, which are both cost-effective energy technologies.

Mr. Ron Davies: Obviously the expenditure referred to by the Minister is welcome. However, as 10 times that amount — £486 million — has been spent on sacking mineworkers, has not the Minister got his priorities slightly wrong? Would he not be better advised to take steps to conserve and protect our coal capacity, at least for the forseeable future, because coal will remain our primary source of energy?

Mr. Goodlad: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the importance of coal in our energy resources has been recognised by the Government through massive investment, and that will remain the case.

Mr. Speller: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last week that only 17 per cent. of the money spent on energy research is on non-nuclear. Does that not mean that the share for alternative energy is very small? Does he not think that a rather larger percentage would be justified?

Mr. Goodlad: The level of funding on research into renewables has been considered by the Advisory Council on Research and Development for Fuel and Power, which decided that the total size of the programme was reasonable.
Research and development for different technologies have different inherent costs. The development and trial of boilers for burning waste paper and board is obviously small scale, and therefore not expensive, whereas fast reactor development is inherently large scale.

Mr. Benn: In considering what resources the Government should devote to renewable energy sources, has the Minister taken account of the latest release of radioactivity at Sellafield, the great anxiety about the dangers in that area, the number of releases of radioactivity from Windscale and now Sellafield, the failure of the Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels plc to provide information and the fact that the United States has not ordered a nuclear power station for nine years? Does that not point towards less nuclear and more coal conservation and renewable energy?

Mr. Goodlad: I know that the right hon. Gentleman will keep in proper perspective the matters that he has raised. Of course all relevant factors are taken into account. During the last four years of the Government in which he was Secretary of State, departmental spending


on renewable energy research and development amounted to £7·6 million. Over the past four years of this Government, departmental spending on renewable energy research and development has amounted to £56·8 million—over seven times as much.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that if it were not for the incidents at Windscale, which have more to do with managerial incompetence than with deficiencies in the technology, nuclear power in Britain would have an excellent future? Will he accept the importance of my comments in that context and do everything possible to ensure that higher standards of management are introduced at that plant?

Mr. Goodlad: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern and, as I have told him before, it is extremely important that the magnitude of any incidents should be kept in the proper perspective. I believe, as I know he does, that nuclear power in Britain has an excellent future.

Mr. Eadie: The Minister must recall that on 25 October 1985 the House debated alternative sources of energy and the broad general view was that to spend £14 million on that was not enough. It was also announced that we did everything but scupper the wave energy programme, yet we have now learnt that the Norwegians have developed wave energy. Is that not a slap in the face for British expenditure and British technology?

Mr. Goodlad: This Government have spent a great deal more than was spent by the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in power. It lies rather oddly with him to suggest that there should be greater expenditure. He will be aware that the Advisory Committee on Research and Development has advised that the amount is reasonable. The wave energy programme was ended because a detailed assessment showed that it would be uneconomic for large-scale use for United Kingdom electricity supply.

Coal Industry (Private Investment)

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Energy which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries permit the investment of private sector capital in major deep mined coal operations.

Mr. David Hunt: Investment of such capital is permitted in a number of OECD countries with major coal industries, including Australia and the United States. I shall arrange for a full list to be published in the Official Report.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he read in today's papers that the workers of the National Freight Corporation, who bought shares in their own company, now find that those shares are worth 22 times what they were when they made the original investment. Will my hon. Friend write today or later this week to Mr. Roy Lynk and ask whether the Nottinghamshire miners might like to set up a similar deal?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the work force at the National Freight Corporation. The Government have always said that they would look positively at any plan put forward by the miners to take a more direct stake in their industry.

Mr. Allen MacKay: While the Minister is looking at investment, will he look at the level of investment in

capital projects in the mining industry that was undertaken pre-MacGregor on the basis of the number of pits and men at that time? Will he take into consideration the rundown of pits and men and bear in mind that it is time that there was a capital review with the object of wiping out the capital debt of the few remaining collieries?

Mr. Hunt: No, Sir. But in the same breath the hon. Gentleman should pay tribute to the fact that under this Government over £4 billion has been invested in the coal industry. The productivity figures are now so good because of the tremendous effort of the work force, combined with clever investment in existing pits.

Mr. Hickmet: Is there any reason in principle why profitable pits should not be privatised?

Mr. Hunt: As we have made clear from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, the Government have no plans for privatising the National Coal Board's mining activities, and no discussions on any such proposals have taken place between the Department and the NCB.

Mr. Hardy: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the hon. Member for Glanford and. Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) that the level of industrial investment in the private sector in Britain is well below the average for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? Would it not be wise for such investment as there is to be channelled into appropriate directions and not into this unwanted direction?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has omitted to pay tribute to the level of investment, 80 per cent of which goes into existing pits and only 20 per cent. of which goes into new pits. The level of such investment is much more than the level in the rest of the Community put together.

Mr. Rogers: During the miners' strike the chairman of the NCB made a commitment not only to the National Union of Mineworkers but to hon. Members that the Margam new mine would be developed when the strike was over. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on whether Mr. MacGregor was lying or whether—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The subject is private sector capital.

Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on whether Mr. MacGregor was telling untruths or whether he was saving the money for private development by friends of the Conservative party?

Mr. Hunt: No proposal on the Margam mine has been put to my Department.

Following is the information:

List of the main OECD countries which permit private sector capital investment in deep-mined coal operations

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
F. R. Germany
Japan
New Zealand
Spain
Turkey
United States of America

Gas Flaring

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much gas was flared from offshore fields on the United Kingdom continental shelf during 1985; and how this compares with 1979.

Mr. Buchannan-Smith: A daily average of 6·6 million cubic metres of gas was flared from offshore installations in 1985. In 1979 the comparable figure was about 18 million cubic metres a day. This represents a reduction of about 63 per cent. in gas flaring over a period when oil production increased by about 60 per cent.

Mr. Hannam: I congratulate the industry and the Government on achieving this substantial reduction in gas flaring. Does that not confirm that we were right not to proceed with the gas-gathering pipeline? Is there further scope for improvement in systems to reduce gas wastage?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The industry's action in gathering gas is significant. For example, this summer we shall see the commissioning of the Fulmar-St. Fergus pipeline, which has the scope to take in additional fields. The north leg extension of the flags pipeline is just beginning to take gas from Statfjord. I welcome all these developments.

Gas Industry (Privatisation)

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received about the implications for safety in the gas industry of the legislation to privatise the British Gas Corporation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have received a number of representations. As the hon. Lady knows, the Gas Bill strengthens and extends the existing safety arrangements.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that privatisation of the industry will place additional responsibilities on the Health and Safety Executive? Does he agree that since 1979 the executive's staff has decreased by 13 per cent. and that the number of inspectors has decreased by 15 per cent.? What assurance can the right hon. Gentleman give on safety?

Mr. Walker: Staffing is a matter for my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Health and Safety Commission is fully satisfied that it can carry out these duties. I am sure that it will do them very well.

Mr. Michael Morris: Has not safety in the gas industry been of paramount importance throughout its long history? Are there not many industries in the private sector dealing with dangerous substances which have an excellent safety record?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. We took advantage of the presentation of the Gas Bill to improve in a number of ways the legislation applying to the gas industry. The industry's excellent safety record will therefore continue and, if anything, will be improved.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Gas Bill, which is in Committee, will enable the private sector to have the right of entry into people's homes for safety purposes? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any plans for controls to prevent abuses of that right?

Mr. Walker: That will be looked at in the normal way. The only right of entry into people's homes will be in the interest of safety. I have received no complaints on this issue.

Mr. Squire: I welcome the privatisation of the industry, but I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the possible advantages of compulsory registration of all gas installers?

Mr. Walker: That is a matter for my noble Friend rather than for me. Progress is being made in the preparation of a proper code and a report will be made. One wants to avoid a highly bureaucratic and expensive system for which there is no real justification.

Mr. Frank Cook: Is it the practice of the British Gas Corporation to keep files on individuals who are opposed to privatisation and on members of their families, and to make them freely available to employees of the British Gas Corporation, in the same way as British Nuclear Fuels plc keeps files on those who are opposed to nuclear matters and on members of their families, and makes them freely available to employees? Who authorises that practice, and what will the right hon. Gentleman do to stop it?

Mr. Walker: There is a clear statement from British Nuclear Fuels plc that the hon. Gentleman's allegation is totally untrue. There is no justification for the remarks. The file of people opposed to the privatisation of the British Gas Corporation would be so thin that I would not bother.

Mr. Hickmet: What will be the future of the Gas Consumers Council after privatisation and will my right hon. Friend outline its role in monitoring safety standards?

Mr. Walker: I do not think that its role has been the monitoring of safety. That is an expert role, which the Health and Safety Executive will continue to fulfil. We have provided for a strong consumer council, and I think that it will be a very effective one.

Mr. Rowlands: During our debates on the Gas Bill we have become increasingly worried about the strength and manpower of the Health and Safety Executive for delivering the provisions under the Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the other Ministers to ensure that the Health and Safety Executive will have sufficient manpower to monitor the responsibilities given to it by the Bill? We need more, not fewer, inspectors for that purpose.

Mr. Walker: I am pleased to say that the Health and Safety Executive is confident that it will have more people devoting more time to that matter than ever before.

NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.

Mr. Boyes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his policy towards the level of resources available to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. in the light of the document "Communities in the East Durham Coalfield", produced by Durham county council, Easington district council and Sunderland borough council, a copy of which has been sent to him.

Mr. David Hunt: The Government will continue to monitor closely the adequacy of the funds available to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. The £20 million to which the company presently has access remains sufficient for its current needs.

Mr. Boyes: I assume that the Minister has had the opportunity to read the document to which I refer—I see he has a copy—and I am sure he will agree that it is well produced, containing a number of interesting and worthwhile projects. The hon. Gentleman will also notice that £31 million of that money is for economic development. Because NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. money is generally channelled through the private sector, which is poorly represented in the region covered by the document, will he make money available for the project? Above all, will he tell me that the principle of channelling money through local authorities is one that the Government find acceptable?

Mr. Hunt: One of the great success stories of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. has been the way in which for every £1 that it invests in a project, £6 has been attracted from other sources. The cost of creating new jobs, estimated at about £5,000 when NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. was set up, may now drop as low as £1,500. That is a tremendous success story for the company.

Mr. Portillo: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a great achievement on the part of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.? Will he confirm that it is his impression that any teething problems which the company experienced have now been overcome? Will he tell the House whether NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. or any equivalent body existed under the previous Labour Government, when so many pits were being closed?

Mr. Hunt: I am happy to confirm what my hon. Friend said. The Government have done something which no other Government have done. They have made the National Coal Board responsible for bringing new job opportunities to mining areas through the work of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. The Opposition seem to forget that NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. is now creating job opportunities at the rate of 500 a month.

Mr. Dorman: Does the Minister agree that the document shows that the future of the east Durham coal communities mentioned in the question, most of which are in my constituency, is very bleak? In those circumstances, will he press the National Coal Board not to close pits until the work being done by NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. in providing other jobs is firmly established? If not, is he prepared to see more than 30 per cent. unemployment in my constituency?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that many pits in his constituency and around that area closed at the time of the previous Labour Government when NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. did not exist. By the end of January NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. had committed £1 million to aid new industry in the north-east, creating nearly 500 job opportunities. Of course, pits have always closed, because reserves are exhausted or for economic reasons. The Government have done something about those reasons.

Union of Democratic Mineworkers

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the leaders of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have not yet met the leaders of the UDM, but I shall be happy to do so if they request a meeting.

Mr. Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern of my constituents that the Leicestershire mineworkers did not leave the National Union of Mineworkers to join the Union of Democratic Mineworkers? Will he confirm that it is in order for any individual mineworker to join the UDM if he wishes to support Roy Lynk and be an alternative voice to which the National Coal Board will listen?

Mr. Walker: That is a matter for the decision or choice of the individual miner, and I am happy to confirm that.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement this afternoon is welcome? Will he condemn the unwillingness of the energy spokesmen of the Labour party to meet that important body of representatives of ordinary working people in the midlands?

Mr. Walker: It has always been the view of the Government that any leader of an officially recognised trade union should have the right to meet Ministers. That should apply to shadow Ministers as well.

Mrs. Currie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in south Derbyshire, although the men are united in their opposition to Arthur Scargill and all his works, they are divided as to which of the coal unions they should join? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in those circumstances, it behoves not only the National Coal Board to be completely even-handed between the unions, but the men to work together for the future of the industry?

Mr. Walker: The NCB is pursuing the policy that any employer should, which is to recognise the representatives of those who are in the majority in any location. That has been the NCB's policy, and I think that it is correct.

Mr. Janner: Has it come to the Secretary of State's attention—and will he draw it to the attention of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels)—that the Leicestershire coal miners remained in the NUM because they had a ballot and decided by a substantial majority that that is where they wished to remain and fight and that the vast majority of Leicestershire coal miners are behind Jack Jones and his leadership, and so am I?

Mr. Walker: I should be interested to hear whether the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues are also behind Arthur Scargill.

Mr. Ottaway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Nottinghamshire councillors who are members of the UDM are being boycotted by the Labour party? Will he assure the House and the UDM that they will always have a sympathetic hearing on the Conservative Benches?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Coal Industry (Colliery Review Procedure)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of Stale for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the working of the modified colliery review procedure.

Mr. Peter Walker: I last met the chairman on 12 February when, among other matters, we discussed the operation of the modified colliery review procedure.

Mr. Dormand: Does the Secretary of State recall that last week I raised with him the serious inconsistency in the reviews on Horden and Bates'? Will he confirm that he has


the authority to instruct, or to offer strong guidelines to the review body that social and economic effects must be taken into consideration when decisions are taken? If not, does that not make a farce of the review system and, perhaps more important, lead to a substantial loss of confidence in that procedure on the part of the NUM?

Mr. Walker: I can only say that one of the problems of starting a genuine review body is that if several individuals are judging individual cases, they will not all come forward with a universal viewpoint. That is bound to happen. I can understand the concern and aggravation that there is not a uniform viewpoint. If there is a uniform viewpoint in one direction some might be pleased, but if it is in another direction, others might be displeased. The review body is at the commencement of its proceedings, and that is what has happened so far.

Mr. Ryman: Is the Secretary of State aware—I am sure he is—that on 4 February Mr. Peter Bowsher, QC, made a strong recommendation that the Bates' colliery should remain open for two years? Is he further aware that the NCB has so far refused to accept that recommendation after a three-day hearing, when the evidence was carefully analysed? Will he use his influence to persuade the NCB to take a decision immediately, upholding the recommendation of Mr. Bowsher?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir, I shall certainly not use any such influence. I do not set myself up as the arbiter of which of the review body's proposals are accepted and which are rejected. That is not my task, nor is it the task of any of Her Majesty's Ministers. No one who has read the Bates' report would say that it was a lovely, clear report enthusiastically suggesting something in one direction. It was perfectly correct for the National Coal Board to announce that it will carefully study the details of the report before taking a decision.

Mr. Orme: In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) and his point about Bates' colliery and the review body, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he has discussed the matter with the chairman of the National Coal Board, and whether he has a personal opinion on the matter?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I have made it clear that it is for the board to decide and come to its conclusions on the matter. I was informed by the NCB chairman that when this substantial report was issued, about a day before a meeting of the board, it decided—sensibly—to examine the report thoroughly before putting it to the board for decision.

Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that on Friday last, as a result of a long-standing engagement, I visited the regional director of the NCB in the north-east of England and discussed, among other things, pit closures? He expressed the view most strongly that it was disappointing that only three Members from the north-east had bothered to see him, two of whom were Conservative Members.

Mr. Walker: I cannot comment on the detailed discussion that took place. I can only say that an increasing number of coal mining constituencies now have the privilege of being represented by Tory Members of Parliament.

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take it after Question Time.

Oil Production

Mr. Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total United Kingdom oil production in 1985; and what is the total forecast for 1986.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Our provisional estimate for total United Kingdom oil production in 1985 is 127·4 million tonnes. Equivalent output in 1986, as published in the 1985 Brown Book, is expected to be between 110 million and 130 million tonnes.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that this is substantially more than the net self-sufficiency which was the Government's original objective? Will he also acknowledge that although a fall in oil prices may be beneficial, the collapse of oil prices is not in anyone's interests, in this country or abroad? Does he accept that the time has come for the Government to talk to other oil producers about reducing North sea production?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman advocating our joining an oil producers' cartel. He forgets that Britain is a major consuming country and that its industry has major interests in that direction. I am surprised that, with his knowledge of the North sea, he does not know that the character of North sea production is different from that of the majority of OPEC countries.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that, despite the current confusion in the oil industry, exploration and development in the North sea will not decline and that Britain will need that oil in the next decade?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is significant that the oil companies tend to take a much longer-term view of the prospects of the North sea than do some Opposition Members.

Mr. Orme: Should not the Secretary of State make a statement to the House about the collapse of oil prices? Hon. Members are entitled to have such a statement. What would happen if the price fell by another $5 a barrel? Would the Government still not take any action? Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to make a statement at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What does the right hon. Gentleman expect will come from such a statement? For what action does he ask? The right hon. Gentleman asks many questions, but does not fully understand the background to the position.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the Monergy campaign.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Monergy campaign has made a very successful start. Already over 100 events have taken place, including the first two Monergy breakfast briefings attended by 1,700 top executives. The supporting advertising and publicity activities have generated a high level of interest.

Mr. Alton: What incentives are being given to voluntary organisations to help with insulation


programmes for homes in the public sector? Will the Secretary of State say something about alternative energy schemes; in particular, about the possibility of a barrage on the River Mersey to save other forms of energy?

Mr. Walker: The Mersey barrage scheme is being examined. I cannot make any statement about it. We have managed to create many more voluntary groups involved in insulation. At the moment more than 200 voluntary groups are operating and over 130,000 homes have been insulated.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Members' Facilities

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any plans to increase the current range and level of support facilities for hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): No, Sir. The present arrangements do, however, review those facilities from time to time.

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Leader of the House for that helpful reply. Does he agree with the impression of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, that our constituents are frequently surprised by our lack of facilities and accommodation here and in our constituencies, and the bad effect that that has on us trying to provide a good standard of services for them? In view of that, will he, in the short term, consider more ways in which the range of facilities and office accommodation for hon. Members can be improved, because such space would be put to good use?

Mr. Biffen: I do not think that I can helpfully comment on the reasons which cause our constituents to judge the quality of our performance. A review of the secretarial, research and office equipment allowance should be under way this summer. Accommodation is the subject of a later question.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who have come, as I have, from the City, where we are used to a professional level of services, now find ourselves having to work four to a room, 20 ft by 10 ft? Does he accept that it is about time the House became more professional, knocked down that hideous collection of old buildings above the tube station and built proper accommodation for Members of Parliament?

Mr. Biffen: I have always felt that Westminster provided a generous refuge for those from the City. There has never been a shortage of those wishing to make the pilgrimage. Phase one of the Bridge street site should be completed by 1990, and I believe that it will have some impact.

Mr. Soley: Does the Leader of the House know of any other country in the developed world which has a system as backward as ours? Does he realise the situation that I am in today—my secretary is off sick so no one can reach me on the telephone; I have an office by Westminster abbey; when my secretary is not sick she is down by the Embankment and there is a 15-minute walk between the three; and 1 am having money transferred

regularly every month from my salary to my expense allowance to pay for the new technology which he and the House say is a good idea?

Mr. Biffen: Despite that litany of misfortune, I know of no Parliament half the equal of this one.

Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend be extremely careful when he considers further facilities for right hon. and hon. Members, because we seem to have had a host of new people called research assistants since the summer? They have led to an enormous number of written questions. If we are not careful, we will all drown in a sea of paper.

Mr. Biffen: As I have already explained to the House, there is every likelihood that a review of the secretarial, research and office equipment allowance will be undertaken in June. I look forward to reading the evidence which my hon. Friend will doubtless contribute to it.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us were better serviced by research and secretarial officers in local government before we came here? Does he agree that the problem is that those who do not need extra servicing are so dominant that they prevent better servicing for those who need it?

Mr. Biffen: I must confess that I have a genuine and high regard for the quality of the Opposition in the House. I am not sure that it would be enhanced by further provision of research assistants. The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his case when he gives evidence to the review that will be undertaken later this year.

Palace of Westminster (Cleaning)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has received about the results of the programme for cleaning the exterior of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Biffen: This is, of course, the subject of an early-day motion signed by a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Chapman: However costly it might be to clean up the exterior of the Palace, does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the best possible investment for the country in terms of tourism, and especially in restoring the pride of our people in their glorious Victorian architectural heritage?

Mr. Biffen: Yes; I very much agree with that sentiment.

Mr. Boyes: Is the Leader of the House aware that those of us who work in an occasionally water-logged slum called the Cloisters are more interested in the inside rather than the outside of the building being put right? If I thought that the Conservative party would be in government long enough, I would ask him if, in future, he would make that his priority.

Mr. Biffen: I worked in the Cloisters for many more years than the hon. Gentleman is ever likely to. I should be very happy to come down and do a reunion meeting and a site inspection.

Mr. Holt: Will my right hon. Friend note that Conservative Members are extremely happy at the excellence of the outside of the building? Will he have a


word with somebody to ensure that the pig sty between this building and our offices elsewhere is cleaned up? Westminster city council allows it to become a cesspit for all visitors to this place to see.

Mr. Biffen: I am not sure that that falls within my responsibilities, but I shall look into the matter and be in touch with my hon. Friend.

Anglo-Irish Parliamentary Tier

Mr. Dubs: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now make a statement on the establishment of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier.

Mr. Biffen: Consideration of this matter continues.

Mr. Dubs: I think that the Leader of the House has already answered my question—nothing seems to be happening. There is a great deal of support for the establishment of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier, but Ministers continually say that it is a matter for Parliament. When we approach the only Minister who can enable things to happen in this House, he says, "Well, it will happen some time." Could we please make some progress, or when the Leader of the House has ceased to be the Leader of the House still nothing will have happened?

Mr. Biffen: Perhaps that will be my contribution to posterity. Discussions between the parties are taking place. Most Irish matters are ones in regard to which speed can be just as dangerous as sloth.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I have an idea. If the parliamentary tier were added to the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council, could we not then be rid of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which is the cause of so much trouble in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that will be one of the many considerations that will weigh with the inter-party talks.

Mr. Alton: What is the status of the discussions that the right hon. Gentleman says have taken place with the other parties on the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier? Has he taken account of the 46 signatures to the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), asking for the tier to be established? Will he take the opportunity this week, with the visit of the Taoiseach to Westminster, to initiate talks to establish the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier?

Mr. Biffen: The answer to the first part of the question is informal, the answer to the second part is yes, and the answer to the third is it will not be necessary because talks are already under way.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Leader of the House discuss these matters with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who led a successful all-party group to Ireland last year as chairman of the Inter-parliamentary Union? Should not the IPU be involved in any tier that might be created?

Mr. Biffen: That is a very reasonable comment. I shall be very happy to get in touch with my hon. Friend.

Members' Offices

Mr. Dormand: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress made in improving office accommodation for hon. Members.

Mr. Biffen: Substantial improvements depend on the completion of phase 1 of the new parliamentary building, which is scheduled for 1990. In addition, the Services Committee has recently published proposals for the use of the former Cannon Row police station, which it is hoped will be ready for parliamentary use by October 1987.

Mr. Dormand: Will the building programme remain within the timetable that has been set for it?

Mr. Biffen: I understand that phase 1 of the programme is on time.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members believe that nothing could be more damaging to the work of this House than for hon. Members to lock themselves away all the time in brand new executive-style offices?

Mr. Biffen: It would depend on which hon. Members.

Mr. Frank Cook: As Cannon Row police station has been judged to be unacceptable for the accommodation of police constables, what kind of budget has been allocated to making it worthy of accommodating hon. Members?

Mr. Biffen: Not quite sufficient to make it suitable for the accommodation of secretaries.

Press Accommodation

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will list the accommodation made available specifically for the use of members of the press accredited to the Palace of Westminster; and what proportion this represents of all accommodation made available to outside organisations.

Mr. Biffen: The parliamentary Press Galley premises include some 34 offices, writing off and refreshment rooms which represent approximately 36 per cent. of the accommodation allocated to outside organisations within the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that all members of the press and of the press lobby have equal access to and facilities for dealing with hon. Members? Is my right hon. Friend able to say whether these premises are being put to the maximum use, or whether other areas of the Palace of Westminster could be handed over to hon. Members who would prefer to be in this part of the Palace rather than in the precincts?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises a wide number of questions. My judgment is that these premises are being put to full use. There has been a long tradition that The Times has a room of its own, although I do not know whether that will outlive the new technology.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Ethnic Minority School Leavers

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he has now explored ways of giving further encouragement to ethnic minority school leavers to apply for Civil Service posts.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office and the Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): A study by Social and Community Planning Research of the attitudes of ethnic minority school leavers towards Civil Service employment is currently in progress in London, Manchester and Leeds.

Mr. Janner: Without awaiting the results of the survey, does the Minister not know that the proportion and number of successful applications for Civil Service posts by people from the ethnic minorities is very small, so much so that many of them believe that it is not worth while applying? Surely steps ought to be taken at once to give people a fair chance and to take positive action in accordance with the code of the Commission for Racial Equality.

Mr. Luce: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, this Government and the Civil Service Departments are committed to being equal opportunity employers. That is important. It will take some months before we know the outcome of a series of surveys that are being undertaken to establish the degree of discrimination. In the meantime, we have drawn the attention of community relations councils to the need to ensure that the ethnic minorities are aware of the recruitment procedures and how to apply for recruitment to the Civil Service.

Mr. Forth: Can my right lion. Friend reaffirm that the sole principle of recruitment to the civil and public service in all its forms will be merit and ability and that no other criteria will be admitted?

Mr. Luce: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister accept that those of us who are anxious to increase the numbers of ethnic minorities in the public service are nevertheless concerned that ethnic monitoring might take such a form as to be capable of being traced back to an individual member of an ethnic minority? Will the Minister give an undertaking that whatever kind of ethnic monitoring is used, it will not be possible for it to be traced hack in due course to an individual?

Mr. Luce: I can confirm that the heart of the scheme is that it should be operated on a voluntary, self-classification basis.

Mr. Hickmet: When encouraging school leavers to enter the Civil Service, whether from the ethnic minority groups or elsewhere, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that if more Civil Service departments were to leave London and go to the regions that would provide a greater opportunity for all school leavers, whatever their ethnic origins?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend knows that there is a policy to disperse civil servants outside London. The programme of dispersing 5,900 civil servants to the regions has not yet been completed.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend visit the local Department of Health and Social Security office in Leicester, where he will see large numbers of members of the ethnic communities already active and working well there? Are they not, therefore, already applying for jobs? Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has not visited those offices and spotted the large number of members of the ethnic communities who are already working there.

Mr. Luce: I am encouraged to hear my hon. Friend's evidence. No national statistics are available, because we do not make surveys that are based on ethnic origin. There is a clear policy of equal opportunity in the Civil Service.

Westland plc (FDA Representations)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations have been received by Her Majesty's Government from the First Division Association of Civil Servants about relations between Ministers and civil servants during the Westland affair.

Mr. Luce: None, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Minister a question of which I gave his office notice last Wednesday in the hope of a considered reply? Is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that Sir Robert Armstrong's guidelines are sufficient? If Ministers start criticising the professionalism of civil servants for lack of understanding, even high flying civil servants will take that as a professional insult. Should there not be a method whereby civil servants can defend themselves in public if they are to be named and criticised in public?

Mr. Luce: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman told me in advance what his question was about. I understand the nature of the question. As I said in answer to a question that the hon. Gentleman posed some months ago, I consider that the guidelines established by Sir Robert Armstrong—the restatement of principle—which deal with the matter of conscience, which allow for various procedures to be followed if a civil servant is worried about his position and his conscience, and which are applicable right up to the post of permanent secretary are adequate. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service is looking at the relationship between Ministers and civil servants, and it may be that the hon. Gentleman would wish to give evidence to the Committee.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Minister be prepared to look at the findings of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service when they come forward and to think again about the adequacy of those rules? Do not the events surrounding the Westland affair illustrate the fact that civil servants are sometimes put in dreadful dilemmas when collective responsibility breaks down? Does the Minister agree that this area needs to be covered more adequately than it is covered by the Armstrong guidelines?

Mr. Luce: Of course I attach importance to the work of the Select Committee and will study with great care what it has to say in its recommendations. As I have said, I consider that the guidelines laid down are adequate. They allow for questions of conscience by any civil servant to be dealt with through internal procedures up to the level of permanent secretary. The Select Committee is looking at this matter, and I wait with great interest to hear what it has to say.

Mr. Forman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Armstrong guidelines, to which he and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) have referred, are mandatory, or discretionary, upon Departments?

Mr. Luce: Those are established guidelines which every Department is expected to follow. A point that I have not made hitherto is that at the end of the day it is Ministers, not civil servants, who are accountable for policies. The relationship between civil servants and Ministers is clearly established in the guidelines.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that civil servants are worried because of the way in which Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have put the responsibility on civil servants for the leaking of the letter from the Solicitor-General to the then Secretary of State for Defence? Is that not a most unfortunate practice? Should not the Prime Minister accept the responsibility instead of putting it on to the private secretary in her office and on to the director of information in the Department of Trade and Industry?

Mr. Luce: In the light of all that has happened, we have seen a fine example of ministerial accountability in the actions of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan).

Mr. Marlow: If any civil servant has been less than competent in his or her advice or action during the Westland affair, will action eventually be taken against him or her, or is it just politicians who always have to take the blame for everything?

Mr. Luce: It is absolutely right that the principle of ministerial accountability should be at the heart of our system, and I am a firm believer in that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) knows, disciplinary procedures are available in the service, and they are brought into action as and when necessary.

Dr. McDonald: I am glad to hear the Minister's last remarks. In view of what he has said, will he admit that during the Westland affair civil servants have all too often been made to carry the can for the Government's

responsibility? Will he consult his ministerial colleagues to see whether the Government can go beyond the Armstrong guidelines and introduce a code of ethics which will make clear the distinction between a civil servant's responsibility to the Government of the day and his responsibility to higher duties?

Mr. Luce: I know that some, including the hon. Lady, take the view that some sort of code of ethics should be developed, but it is exceedingly difficult to know on what basis one could anticipate every set of circumstances in the relationship between a Minister and his civil servants. I believe that the guideline procedures are perfectly adequate.

Mr. Beith: If the civil servants who have been publicly blamed are not to be disciplined, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) suggests, ought they not to be publicly exonerated?

Mr. Luce: The principle at the heart of this discussion is ministerial accountability, and we have seen a fine example of that in the past few weeks.

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ryman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order in their usual place, after the private notice questions.

Mr. Boyes: My point of order arises out of Question Time.

Mr. Speaker: I know, but I will take points of order after the private notice questions.

British Leyland

Mr. John Smith: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on BL subsidiary companies in view of the increasing number of rival bids to acquire them.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): The aim of the Government and of the BL board is to secure an internationally competitive United Kingdom commercial vehicle industry, and to improve the long-term prospects for BL's constituent business.
As I informed the House on 3 February, discussions are at an advanced stage between BL and General Motors in respect of Leyland Trucks, Land Rover, Freight Rover and certain related overseas operations. Discussions are also taking place with the Laird Group about the future of Leyland Bus.
I can confirm to the House that, of the companies that are willing to have their interest in the businesses made public, Lonrho is in contact with BL concerning Land Rover and Freight Rover; Aveling Barford has expressed an interest in Land Rover and Leyland Bus; and Volvo has expressed an interest also in Leyland Bus. Proposals for a management buy-out are also expected to come before the board.
The Government and the BL board will consider other proposals on their commercial merits in relation to the future of BL as a whole.

Mr. Smith: Is the Secretary of State not aware of the growing puzzlement, concern and dismay in this country that the Government appear to be presiding over an auction of some of the best of British industry? Can he tell us clearly why this is happening at all? Why is it necessary for this to be going on?
When it seems to make sense to General Motors to acquire Leyland Vehicles and Land Rover, when it seems to make sense to Lonrho to bid for Land Rover, when it seems to make sense to Aveling Barford to make a bid, and when it makes sense to Volvo to acquire Leyland Bus, why on earth does it not make sense to British Leyland to retain and develop these valuable assets in the British interest?
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what view the Government take about General Motors buying Jaguar shares with a view to acquiring that company, which, if the deal with BL that we are told is well advanced goes through, will mean that General Motors will, in more or less one operation, acquire a whole clutch of vital British interests and successes?
Does the Secretary of State not think that he should raise the question in the Cabinet later in the week, in the hope that the political results of his folly will be borne in upon his colleagues and this dishonourable sellout will be brought to an end?

Mr. Channon: As usual, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is interested only in trying to cause the maximum amount of trouble, without considering—[Interruption.] The attitude of the Opposition, in laughing at that, proves my point. They are not trying to consider the commercial future of the industries and the people who work in them; they are merely trying to get the maximum

political capital out of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish".] That is typical of the Opposition, with their irresponsible, hopeless and vindictive attitude.

Mr. Alex Fletcher: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the skilful way in which he has attracted British bids for BL and its subsidiaries. Will he give an undertaking that those bids will be considered entirely on their merits?

Mr. Channon: Yes, As I told the House on 12 February, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we will consider these bids.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is, or ought to be, a clear distinction between foreign ownership of the British car industry, or parts of it, and foreign participation or participation and co-operation, such as already exists between, for example, BL and Honda? In that connection, will the right hon. Gentleman register our surprise that the board of the Land Rover company did not know of the General Motors deal that was being stitched up until it became public?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that if the Government are determined to go ahead with the privatisation—we assume that they are—they will give a fair wind and priority to bids from British concerns and participation and cooperative ventures from foreign concerns that do not involve foreign takeover of the companies?

Mr. Channon: I am surprised at what the right hon. Gentleman says about Land Rover. The BL board has always been in favour of the General Motors' proposals, provided that the assurances which I outlined to the House last week can be obtained to get the best possible results for BL subsidiaries. As I have told the House on many occasions, I am trying to get the best solutions for these companies, and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions, we shall naturally consider the other bids.

Mr. David Madel: As the talks between General Motors and BL Trucks are to do with livelihood of thousands of people who want to work in a successful British truck company, is my right hon. Friend able to say whether there have been any signs from General Motors as to how long negotiations are likely to continue?

Mr. Channon: I confirm what my hon. Friend said in the first part of his question. As I have said before, it is in the interests of all concerned in the industry that these negotiations should come to a successful end as soon as they conceivably can, so that we can remove the damaging uncertainty and the worries. I hope that the talks will come to a conclusion soon.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is it not a fact that BL, under public ownership, had a fine record of ordering components from British firms? Could not this record be put in jeopardy if either of the alternative sell-offs proposed by the Government should go ahead? Can the right hon. Gentleman give any guarantee that, if BL is sold off, such purchases will continue?

Mr. Channon: I have already been through the assurances with the House on a number of occasions and, clearly, satisfactory assurances will have to be obtained.


In spite of the great progress that has been made, we must face the fact that Leyland Vehicles lost £61 million in 1984, on top of £70 million in 1983, that Land Rover is only just in profit, and that there is a serious commercial problem which the House should address seriously.

Mr. Roger King: During his negotiations, will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the position of Freight Rover, which is an exceedingly profitable part of the Leyland Land Rover organisation? In particular, in the event of a sell-off, whether to Lonrho or anybody else, will he pay particlar attention to the 300 Austin dealers, who will not have a light van to sell, and to the number of component suppliers in the west midlands who may, as a result of any sale, find their sales of components jeopardised?

Mr. Channon: We shall consider all the points that my hon. Friend makes, and I am sure he will agree that, in the interests of all dealers and everybody else concerned, we should get a speedy and satisfactory conclusion, to provide a good long-term future for these businesses.

Mr. Terry Davies: How do the Government intend to consult those who work at BL?

Mr. Channon: There will be talks with the employees through the usual consultation machinery.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Grateful though my right hon. Friend will no doubt be for the helpful intervention of Mr. Rowland of Lonrho, will he resist that blandishment? Land Rover already has a satisfactory market in the middle east and Africa. Is not Land Rover's greatest need for major opportunities to sell in the United States of America—something that one of the options at which my right hon. Friend is looking will provide?

Mr. Channon: It is the case that if the General Motors deal goes ghrough, one of the major attractions will be the opportunites that will be available in the United States.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State aware that my attempts to promote a joint venture, and my invitation to Volvo to visit the BL plant in my constituency was blocked by a member of the BL board? Is he aware that the meetings that I arranged this week with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, with the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry with two senior Leyland Bus managers, including the managing director of Leyland Bus, was blocked once again by a member of the BL board? Will he remove these blocks and ensure that when proposals for a management buy-out in Leyland Bus are submitted, they will be given the fullest possible consideration by members of the board—that is, in the event that the Minister insists on pressing on down this route?

Mr. Channon: I assure the hon. Gentleman that any such proposals will be considered on their merits. Volvo has expressed an interest in Leyland Bus, which will be carefully considered. The Minister of State is to meet the hon. Gentleman later this week, with the managers to whom he referred. I hope that I have given satisfactory answers on all three points.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us

welcome the first few words of his statement, in which he said that his aim was to have a viable industry? That is right. Does he further accept that the lorry industry's problems, both General Motors' and BL's, are different from those of Land Rover and Freight Rover? Is it not a good idea to separate the two? In view of the interest by Aveling and Lonrho—and I believe, by others—in Land Rover, surely there is no reason to offer a sweetener. If my hon. Friend must sell, why not have a proper auction, so that everyone knows that for once the country is getting the right price?

Mr. Channon: I am fully aware of my hon. Friend's views. I assure him that in any solution that comes forward in due course I shall bear in mind what he has said. I am particularly anxious to ensure the best possible future, not only for the freight business, but for Land Rover itself. That is one of the prime aims of the consultations and discussions.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will consultations with the work forces be held before, or after, any deals are completed?

Mr. Channon: I have already answered that.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the recovery plan for Land Rover is seen to be working and that vital steps have been taken at Land Rover to put it on a promising and prosperous road? If that continues just a little longer, could we not have a promising flotation, like that for Jaguar?

Mr. Channon: That is possible. Although there has been a great deal of progress in Land Rover, there is a great deal further to go. In 1984 Land Rover's United Kingdom turnover was £490 million, but its profits were only £2 million, following a loss of £14 million the year before. A serious commercial problem must be addressed.

Mr. George Park: I accept that public money has gone into Land Rover and Freight Rover, but now that part of BL is emerging into profitability and has good prospects, would it not make more sense to allow the taxpayer to have the benefits, indirectly through the Treasury, than hive off the company so that the benefits go to Detroit?

Mr. Channon: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I repeat that I am trying to find a solution that is in the long term interests of Land Rover and Freight Rover.

Mr. Robert Adley: I sympathise with my right hon. Friend in the problems that he had to pick up when he took over his new job, but does he remember telling me the other day that he had received no other bids or expressions of interest other than from General Motors? Will ne now make it clear that he welcomes this widening of interest? In view of the warfare between predecessors in his Department and Lonrho, will he ensure that new interests are considered even-handedly with everyone else?

Mr. Channon: I have made it clear to the House that all serious proposals will be considered on their merits.

Mr. Tony Benn: Does the Minister recall that over 20 years ago when a previous Conservative Government agreed to the sale of Rootes to Chrysler a number of assurances were given that were not worth the paper on which they were written? Since the sale of a


profitable British company is a matter of great concern, why can we not have a ballot of workers to allow them to determine the future of the company, whose wealth they have created through their own labour?

Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I, too, recall similar declarations in the past, and that is very much in my mind. The usual consultation will take place with the work force.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the people of Luton see real potential advantages from a merger between General Motors and the truck division of BL?

Mr. Channon: I appreciate what my hon. and learned Friend has said. We want a solution that will help, not hinder, the prospects of all sections of that business.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Opposition speak for the national interest, the interests of the lorry industry, the interests of the Leyland workers and, unlike some in this House, the interests of those who work in Luton?
The right hon. Gentleman said that Leyland Commercial Vehicles was not profitable, that the bus company was not profitable and that Land Rover has only just broken into profitability. Can he explain, therefore, why so many people want to buy those vehicles? Now that taxpayers' money has been put into that business, will he reconsider and allow it to move forward as a financial success in public ownership?

Mr. Channon: I have given the House the figures for the losses in the truck division for 1983 and 1984. I do not have the 1985 figures, which will be published in the usual way when they are available.
Great progress has been made in Land Rover and other parts of BL. However, the House is deluding itself if it imagines that the problems are over, that hard decisions can be avoided, or that there is some magic road down which we can go without making difficult choices.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot continue to kid ourselves all the time, and that it is about time that the management and work force of BL reached the conclusion that they have to produce the goods in competition with Japan and other countries? If they reach that conclusion, perhaps they will produce quality goods that can compete fairly in world markets.

Mr. Channon: Substantial strides have already been made. If we can, we must achieve an increasing share of the market and a solution that is in the long-term interests of all the companies in the BL group.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I thank the Minister of State for his courteous attitude towards my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) and myself when we visited him last Wednesday to discuss the problems of Bathgate.
Is there not a dilemma, in that millions of pounds of public money have been poured into the huge Bathgate site by the West Lothian district council, the Scottish Office and the right hon. Gentleman's Department? Therefore, should not the district council and the civil servants in the Scottish Office and the Department have some say in the future of that site? Surely that should not be left entirely

to a commercial decision by Leyland Vehicles? A moral issue is involved in determining the future of that site that affects the whole of central Scotland.

Mr. Channon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, decisions on Bathgate were taken some considerable time ago. Nothing that I have said today or on earlier occasions changes the position. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) raised important points with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and those matters will receive careful consideration.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in large measure, BL's problems stem from the Labour Government's encouragement of a merger in 1968 between Leyland and the British Motor Corporation and the number of plants that were kept open? Does he further agree that it is not the business of the Government to build motor cars? However, if there is to be a disposal, would it not be more sensible, if possible, to sell to a British bidder rather than to a foreign bidder?

Mr. Channon: I had better not delve into the history of BL. Strong views are held in many quarters of the House on the issues that my hon. Friend raised. I am trying to achieve the best possible solution for the future of the subsidiary companies. I shall inform the House when negotiations are completed.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Why does the Secretary of State continue to talk down the achievements of Land Rover? Does he not agree that it has made profits every year, barring 1983, since it was established in 1948? Is he not aware that in its interim statement BL forecast greater profits than those about which the right hon. Gentleman has just told the House and, that it has now achieved record sales? Is he aware that we are not asking for a magic solution, but simply for the same solution for Land Rover that Jaguar had in the past?

Mr. Channon: I am not in the least talking Land Rover down. I have said again and again, and I repeat in case there is any doubt, that the Land Rover products are excellent. They have a worldwide reputation, of which all those involved can be proud. What I must do is to give the House the actual figures, and those that I have given the House this afternoon show the company's financial position.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: If we have excellent British products and if we have had recent improvement, why the hurry to flog off BL?

Mr. Channon: Because, as I told the House last week, there are serious commercial problems in many of the companies. We must try to get them on to a basis of certainty for the future. [Interruption.] I am extremely surprised that the Opposition would like this damaging uncertainty to go on—the damaging uncertainty which has largely been created by the irresponsible tactics of the Opposition.

Mr. Jack Straw: Why does the Secretary of State deliberately set out to rubbish the achievements of BL, and Leyland Trucks in particular, and of the thousands of people who work in the company, as he has done from the Dispatch Box this afternoon, when last month the figures issued by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders showed that Leyland was at the


top of the league for the sale of heavy trucks and that General Motors' Bedford subsidiary had slipped to fifth place? What is in it for Leyland to be taken over by the failing General Motors? What information has the right hon. Gentleman of General Motors' plans to produce a world lorry, which would seriously undermine any design and development capability of Leyland Trucks?

Mr. Channon: I have in no sense rubbished the achievements of Leyland Vehicles. [Interruption.] I certainly have not. If it is rubbishing the achievements of Leyland Vehicles to tell the truth about the figures, that is astonishing. The House should recognise that there is immense over-capacity in this area. There are serious commercial problems and substantial losses between Leyland Vehicles—£61 million in 1984 and £70 million in 1983. To imagine that those problems can be wished away by a magic wand is simply ridiculous.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time. I regret that I cannot call everyone, but I shall ensure that those who are not called get preference when we discuss the matter again.

Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my intention to move an application under Standing Order No. 10 in view of the inadequate response that we have received from the Secretary of State and his deliberate evasion of a number of important questions. May I have your advice on when I should do so?

Mr. Speaker: At the appropriate time, which is after private notice questions.

Exceptionally Severe Weather Payments

Mr. Michael Meacher: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if in the light of the recent decision of the Social Security Commissioners he will make a statement about fuel payments in periods of exceptionally severe weather like the recent cold snap.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The main help for claimants in meeting their heating costs is the scale rates which cover normal living expenses. In addition, there is an extensive range of heating additions which give further help, for example, for all householders over 65 and families with a child under five. Expenditure on those additions totalled some £400 million in 1984–85—£140 million more in real terms than in 1978–79.
The regulations also provide for single payments to claimants who have extra fuel costs arising from exceptionally severe weather. Last winter decisions were handled using trigger points based on meteorological office information. The system was widely criticised and was ruled invalid by the Social Security Commissioners last autumn. In the light of this the chief adjudication officer issued further guidance on the handling of claims.
It is for the independent adjudication officers in each locality to decide whether there has been a period of exceptionally severe weather and to determine subsequent claims. I understand that some designations have been made and that others are under consideration.

Mr. Meacher: Now that the Social Security Commissioners have ruled that the Government's system of exceptionally severe weather payments of last winter was invalid, is it not an abdication of Government responsibility that the buck has been passed to local officers to decide for themselves whether there has been a period of exceptionally severe weather and, if so, how much extra claimants should have to spend on fuel? Are the Government not washing their hands of this matter in issuing a circular that does not define "period", "exceptionally severe weather" and "trigger points"? Which local offices have so far started making payments according to the circular of 6 December, as the temperature has now fallen as low as minus 11 deg in Scotland and the north-east and minus 17 deg in the Cambridge area? Why are local officers apparently not advertising the availability of these payments, bearing in mind that it has now been freezing for some weeks?
As the previous standardised system notoriously led to unequal treatment of different places with the same low temperature, is it not clear that the present wholly random alternative will lead to far greater inequities and unfairnesses? Are we not seeing the first example of that abandonment of claimants' rights in favour of local discretion and uncertainty which will soon become the order of the day under the Government's proposed social fund?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has not acknowledged that the position last winter was, in one important respect, the same as this winter. The decision has always been a matter for the local adjudication officers. The


difference is that, last winter, local adjudication officers were given guidance by the Chief Adjudication Officer setting out generalised national standards for the application of the scheme. It was that guidance, purporting to guide local adjudication officers, that was found invalid by the Social Security Commissioners. Their finding was that the regulation could be operated only on the basis of individual local decisions by the local adjudication officers. The Chief Adjudication Officer has simply responded to the finding of the appropriate legal authority—in this case, the Social Security Commissioners. I think I need not tell the House what the hon. Gentleman would have said if the finding of the Social Security Commissioners had been ignored. The finding has simply been implemented by the Chief Adjudication Officer.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I could say in which areas a period of exceptionally severe weather had been declared for the purposes of this regulation. We are aware of designations in Northampton, Peterborough, Hertford, Cambridge — to which the hon. Gentleman referred — the Greater London area as a whole, Mansfield and Sutton in Ashfield. I understand that designations are under consideration in a number of other areas.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, since 1979, not only has the scale payment been increased in real terms but its spread has been increased?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are spending substantially more on regular weekly additional payments than when the Conservative party came to office—£400 million, which is £140 million more in real terms than in 1978–79. Those regular weekly additions which now go to all supplementary pensioner householders over 65 and to a number of other groups are a much more important source of support for heating payments than the system of single payments which last year resulted in the payment of only about £1·7 million in benefit at an administration cost of £1 million. That is plainly not a satisfactory system.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am amazed at the audacity of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in raising the matter when, as a Minister 10 years ago, he suppressed information on hypothermia. Does the Minister not think it a scandal that for the second year running the Scots have been refused payment of the severe weather allowance whereas it has been made available in the south and midlands of England? Is he not aware that one quarter of all the deaths from hypothermia occur in Scotland? How much do the Scots have to take from this Government before we are given adequate heating allowances based on climatic differences.

Mr. Newton: I know that the hon. Gentleman had, what I hope, was a fruitful meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the Under-Secretary. We shall continue to give consideration to the points he made. He also knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, is examining the information available about hypothermia and death, which requires a good deal of careful examination. I can only say that the dissatisfaction expressed in Scotland last year was no doubt one of the

things taken into account by the social security commissioners when they looked at the operation of the regulation. We have faithfully adhered to the guidance of the proper legal authorities about how that regulation should be administered this winter.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend accept that a system of payment which does not provide for a prompt indication as to whether payments are to be made and does not give a clear idea as to how much will be paid is not a particularly helpful system? Will my hon. Friend accept that the present system is deficient in both respects?

Mr. Newton: I accept that. I think that last winter I used the phrase "weird and wonderful" to describe to the House the system then. We have considered what would be the appropriate action. In the light of the social security commissioners' finding last autumn we felt that it would be appropriate to implement the commissioners' recommendation for the proper way to implement the existing regulation and to continue to keep the matter under review in the light of what happens this winter.

Mr. Norman Hogg: On last Tuesday and Wednesday it was minus 11 deg C in central Scotland, plus a high wind bringing a hill chill factor. How cold does it have to be before my constituents qualify for the allowance?

Mr. Newton: It is inherent in the nature of the system that the only person who can answer that is the local adjudication officer in the hon. Gentleman's area. I suggest that he makes his points direct to him.

Mr. Paul Marland: Will my hon. Friend consider increasing a little further the spread of the general heating allowance in order that in some circumstances we may be able to include those who are not already on supplementary benefit?

Mr. Newton: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, but we have always felt that the appropriate course was to focus help most clearly on those who are identified as the least well off in the community. which is those on supplementary benefit. To that end we have made the very substantial increase in the amount and the spread of heating additions which I have already described.

Mr. Frank Field: As hundreds and thousands of our constituents are suffering misery from the cold to the extent that some will die, will the Minister give an undertaking that he will seek radio and television time to tell constituents what help is available and how to claim?

Mr. Newton: I shall undertake that in areas where a period of exceptionally severe weather is declared we shall take steps to bring that to the attention of claimants. Indeed, as a result of the arrangements made last winter, local officers have stocks of leaflets which describe the help available and we have given them further advice on local publicity arrangements to draw the matters to claimants' attention.

Mr. Peter Rost: Does my hon. Friend accept that there would be much less hardship today and savings in public funds if the Government had taken the advice of the Select Committee on Energy. The Committee said that there should be more insulation of low-income family homes and that it should be speeded up


now because it will be more cost-effective than wasting huge sums of taxpayers' money paying people's heating bills.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that that is a matter for my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Energy and one which they take very seriously. I can also tell the House that we are anxious to work closely with the Department of Energy to promote insulation.

Mr. David Winnick: Why should so many pensioners throughout the country have to endure such intense misery during the present cold spell while there are red-tape regulations about triggering off the special payments? Is the Minister aware that, although he tells the House that that is a matter for local DHSS officers, that is not the position? I have made inquiries and it seems that the responsibility in practice is being taken by regional offices. Is the Minister aware that there are other groups of people, certainly pensioners on very small incomes, who do not receive a penny of supplementary benefit and are therefore not eligible for the payment which can be made during the winter or for any other form of payment to help pay their heating bills? Is that not disgraceful and will it not become even worse when the Social Security Bill becomes law?

Mr. Newton: The legal position is, and always has been, that it is a matter for the local adjudication officer to decide on local conditions. It is equally open to adjudication officers, on these or any other matters, to seek guidance from adjudication officers further up the system. On the other matter, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this regulation is effectively simply a translation into a regulated form of the discretionary power previously exercised by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. To that extent, the policy of focusing help on those on supplementary benefit has been common to both Administrations.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that it seems to many of us that the Government's entirely honourable and good intentions are being frustrated by the arbitrary and often insensitive behaviour of the local adjudication officers? May we not have a temperature guideline so that we do not have the ridiculous problem whereby when it is minus 11 deg. people are getting no form of benefit?

Mr. Newton: The problem, as my hon. Friend may perhaps understand, is that the attempts to lay down clear national guidelines last winter by the Chief Adjudication Officer were precisely what was attacked in the House at that time and subsequently found by the social security commissioners to be invalid.

Mr. Gordon Brown: When experts estimate that at least 1,000 lives are being lost every month as a result of the cold and 900,000 pensioners are at risk, how does the Minister justify refusing benefit when temperatures are as low as minus 11 deg. in Scotland and the north-east? Why, if there is local discretion, do the new rules which he has sent out state that benefit will be cut if there is sickness in the family or if a pensioner has bought a new heater? Why do the Government put saving money before saving lives?

Mr. Newton: I state as a fact to the House that the circular is that of the Chief Adjudication Officer and it is not one which Ministers could or should dictate. The Government's concern for the needs of poorer pensioners is precisely why the coverage of regular substantial weekly heating additions has been greatly extended and increased in value by the present Administration.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: If the Government have set their face against the structural approach based on entitlement, which I very much regret, will they consider two modifications? Will they allow claimants to make claims on the basis of unpaid, not receipted, bills? Secondly, will the Minister look at the possibility of getting the fuel boards to provide statistics on which claims can be made? Is he aware that the commissioner's decision in paragraph 24 suggests that fuel boards are asking for fees to provide claimants with information on which to base claims?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly look at the hon. Gentleman's second point. On the first matter, I am afraid that once again I have to say to the House that not only is it a matter for the local adjudication officer to determine whether the regulation applies in a particular area at a particular time, it is for the local adjudication officer to decide the basis on which the calculation of any payment shall be made.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is mystifying as to why the Government are not receiving credit from the Opposition for the substantial increases in real terms in heating additions which have been given by the Government? Will he confirm that nearly all pensioners and disabled people are now benefiting very much more than they ever did under Labour?

Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case that the importance of this particular regulation needs to be placed in the context of the figures—£400 million a year is being spent in regular weekly additions to those who can be thought to have the greatest need. The regulation has been used on only two occasions in the past five years. On the first occasion about £3·6 million was paid out and on the second occasion, last year, about £1·7 million was paid out. Those figures compare with £400 million of regular weekly help which we have given to those in need.

Mr. Bill Michie: As the Minister has assured us that there are severe weather conditions—he is not sure where they are—will he take full responsibility for, and instruct local officers, such as those in Sheffield to mount an effective publicity campaign to reassure the 50,000 claimants in Sheffield that they can keep their heating on and will get financial help as soon as possible?

Mr. Newton: I have already said that we have taken steps to try to make sure that local publicity is effective in getting help to claimants, where a period of exceptionally severe weather is declared.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Treasury Bench does not have a good record on locating Cleveland, and once again it will be difficult to explain why Greater London, instead of the north-east of England, is getting the excess money? While my hon. Friend is answering my question, perhaps he can prompt somebody on the Treasury Bench to reply to the


letter that I wrote drawing attention to the case of one of my constituents. He has lost his heating allowance because he went away and did two weeks in the Territorial Army. Since the change in the regulations on 5 August 1985, such people who were previously on supplementary benefit have lost their benefit simply because they went away to do TA duty.

Mr. Newton: I shall look into my hon. Friend's second point. On his first point, I cannot add to what I said about it being, legally, a matter for local decision.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Is the Minister aware that, whatever new guidance has been issued, the effect is absolutely the same as last winter. As I have confirmed from inquiries that I made in Glasgow today, the colder it is normally, the colder it has to become before the payment can be made. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the sense of outrage and injustice in Scotland and elsewhere about this ridiculous regulation?

Mr. Newton: I understand the sense of objection that was expressed in Scotland last year and is being reflected in what is being said today. That is precisely why we shall continue to look at the matter in the light of the new method of administration that has been adopted for this winter.

Mr. Tony Benn: Does the Minister appreciate that when I rang the Chesterfield office, the officers there said that the weather was not exceptionally severe for this time of the year? Thus they were saying that because it is always cold in February, when it gets exceptionally cold, pensioners and others in the area cannot get the payments that they need. For the Minister to shield behind the local adjudication officers and others is to try to abandon the responsibility that he has to see that people do not die of cold in the winter when, with much trumpeting, we were told that the emergency weather payments would be made. That is the issue. Will the hon. Gentleman address his mind to it and not take us through the bureaucratic maze to confuse people who dare not spend money on heating until they know that they will get the allowance, because they do not want to find that they are in debt later in the winter?

Mr. Newton: The core of the Government's position is that the proper way to help pensioners and others on

supplementary benefit who have additional fuel needs is to make sure that they get significant extra help every week. That is what we have sought to do.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Is the Minister aware that his Pontius Pilate attitude this afternoon contrasts sharply with the written answer that his Department gave me on 22 January, showing that nearly 40,000 more pensionsers died in the winter months of January to March last year compared, with the summer months of July to September the previous year? The only difference is temperature. When will this annual cull of pensioners stop? Is the only hope that the Minister is holding out to pensioners today—the 450 who die every day because of cold—that they will get the payment posthumously?

Mr. Newton: The effect of what the Government have already done for pensioners is to give them help that is signficantly greater than any that they received from the previous Labour Government. In the case of supplementary benefit—[Interruption.] The increase in heating additions under the present Government, as I have said on several occasions, is to £400 million. That is an increase of £140 million in real terms since Labour Members were on Government Benches, and, if I remember rightly, it was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who invented what was widely regarded as the farcical electricity discount scheme.
Later—

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I never question your choice of speakers to ask questions. Nor am I questioning your not calling Members to ask questions. However, I should like to place on record the fact that it is a matter of great regret that you chose to end questions when only two Opposition Members still wished to speak—my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) and myself.

Mr. Speaker: There were rather more than two hon. Members wishing to ask questions, as the hon. Gentlman would have realised had he looked behind him. We had nearly 25 minutes on this matter, and it was an extension of Question Time. Normally, I would not allow more than 15 minutes in such cases.

Colliery Review Procedure

Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during Question Time the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said that of the three Members of Parliament who had been to see Mr. Archibald, the regional director of the north-east region of the National Coal Board, two were Conservatives. I should like to correct the record. On 12 July 1985, 15 members of the Labour party went to see Mr. Archibald. In addition, since that date, several Labour Members have been to the offices of Mr. Archibald. Five weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson), the secretary of the northern group, asked for another meeting with Mr. Archibald to discuss the future of the north-east coalfield, but it was refused. My hon. Friend has since written asking for another meeting. Somebody somewhere is not telling the truth, but that is correct and it is the truth.

Mr. Speaker: I think that honour has been satisfied.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you examine Hansard tomorrow, you will see that I said that it was reported to me by the director that only three Members of Parliament had been to visit him at his office. He told me that, and that is what I said. If he has lied to me, I shall be just as aggrieved as is the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), but I stand by the statement that I made.
Later—

Mr. John Ryman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises directly from a supplementary question answered by the Secretary of State for Energy, on question No. 9—[Interruption.] It is a genuine point of order—not a bogus one. The Secretary of State for Energy purported to summarise the recommendation by Peter Bowsher QC in his report, that Bates' colliery in Blyth should not be closed.

Mr. Speaker: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that this is a continuation of Question Time I cannot adjudicate on matters of that kind. The hon. Gentleman must put a point of order which I can answer. I cannot possibly deal with that matter.

Mr. Ryman: With great respect to you, Mr. Speaker, you cannot rule on the validity of a point of order until I have put the point of order, which I have not yet done. My point is that the Secretary of State for Energy's summary, no doubt unwittingly, and no doubt he was doing his incompetent best, was wholly inaccurate. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of principle and guidance for Back Benchers, for future occasions such as this, to say that if a Minister makes an inaccurate statement about a report there should be an opportunity to correct that impression. On this occasion, the best way to do that would be to place a copy of the report in the Library.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a matter for me, and I must say to the hon. Member that this is a continuation of Question Time. Frequently statements are made to the House with which hon. Members disagree, and I cannot give judgments as to whether the statements are totally accurate, inaccurate or absolutely right.

Conventions of the House

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer to the behaviour of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) last week. Was it in order for him to pass on information which he had received privately about allegations of child sex and pornography on a council estate in my constituency? I raise this point of order because he received a letter from a constituent of mine, as I did, making allegations about a large number of people in my constituency, involving child pornography and abuse.
I wholly deplore child pornography or abuse, and I think that the best way to deal with these matters is through proper and sensitive investigation, which was going on at the time. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth chose, last Thursday, to make a statement to the Press Association, which appeared later in The London Standard. The effect was to make any inquiries difficult to follow, and the estate was besieged by the media, seeking salacious gossip and stories.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth will, in the light of the investigations that have taken place, withdraw the statement that he made, visit that estate and apologise in person to the tenants, to whom he has caused a great deal of personal insult and hurt in the past few days.
I have raised this point of order because constituents of mine are extremely upset by the fact that an hon. Member from another part of the country should behave in such an irresponsible and disgraceful manner, which is not in the best interests of the tenants of that estate, or of the cause that he purports to support.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter for the hon. Member concerned, but I say to the hon. Gentleman and the House that there is a convention in the House that if we propose to raise a matter concerning another Member's constituency, we give him notice of that. That is a convention that we should maintain.

News International Plant, Wapping

Mr. Tony Benn: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice last night that I would beg leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the recent incidents involving the police outside the printing plant owned by Mr. Rupert Murdoch at Wapping.
There can be no doubt as to the specific nature of the incidents directly following from the fact that more than 5,000 print workers were summarily dismissed after working for The Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World, and Mr. Murdoch's decision to move the printing of those papers to a fortified establishment surrounded by barbed wire in Wapping.
That brutality of action understandably led to picketing, and demonstrations of protest by those affected who have lost everything, and by their families and friends, who see it as a direct attack upon the rights of workpeople to band themselves together in trade unions to defend their legitimate interests.
The Metropolitan police Commissioner, Sir Kenneth Newman, who is directly and personally answerable to the Home Secretary and, through him to the House, then decided to bring in the riot police. The commissioner also decided to activate the instructions laid down in the "Police Operations Manual" —extracts of which you, Mr. Speaker, authorised me to place in the Library of the House last year—under which peaceful demonstrators may be attacked without provocation by mounted and foot police, and disabled by the use of truncheons. As a result of that police action, a number of people have been injured and a number of arrests have been made.
Mr. Speaker, the public importance of what has happened here in the heart of London is obvious. First, a foreign national, Mr. Murdoch, has unjustly deprived several thousand employees of their work, income, pensions and redundancy pay. Secondly, those workers have contributed directly to the making of millions of pounds of profits by Mr. Murdoch, money that he has then used to build a new printing plant and so deny them of any benefit from their labour. Finally, the police, instead of standing aside, have been instructed to give 100 per cent. support to Mr. Murdoch and to use violent methods to deny the print workers their right to go to work—[Interruption.]
I do not have to emphasise the connection between what is happening at Wapping and similar incidents that occurred during the miners' strike. The difference is that during the miners' strike, the dismissals were on the grounds that the pits were uneconomic, but no one could argue that Mr. Murdoch's enterprises are uneconomic.
During the miners' strike the police were used to allow people to go to work; that is what the print workers at Wapping are pleading for.
I submit that what is raking place is fundamentally unjust, and undermines basic freedoms and civil liberties won by people over many centuries. The House will ignore that injustice at its peril. Good and decent people are being treated disgracefully and I appeal directly and personally to you, Mr. Speaker, to recognise the importance of what is happening and allow an emergency debate on the shameful conduct of Mr. Murdoch and the Ministers the police and the courts who are supporting him.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the recent incidents involving the police outside the printing plant owned by Mr. Rupert Murdoch at Wapping.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that my only duty in considering that case under Standing Order No. 10 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening or for tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find that the matter meets all the criteria laid down in the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not for me in any way to suggest that you should censor what hon. Members say, but I distinctly heard that idiot, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), acting like a stupid berk. If that is the level of conduct which we have in the House, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to deal with idiots like the hon. Gentleman and allow some proper order in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows, my microphones were directed to the right hon. Gentleman making the submission. I heard nothing untoward from below the Gangway.

British Leyland

Mr. John Smith: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the disposal of the various divisions of British Leyland.
The matter is specific because an auction is taking place of defined parts of the British Leyland empire. It is extremely specific for the thousands of employees in the various divisions. The Secretary of State was asked earlier by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) whether the employees who have not yet been consulted would be consulted before or after a deal was struck.
It is staggering that the Secretary of State saw fit not to answer a question that goes right to the heart of the matter. We need to debate the matter in the House so that we know the Government's position on that and other issues. I need hardly say, in view of previous exchanges, that the matter is important to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to many parts of the country. It is especially important because it appears that the Government want to sell a company, namely British Leyland Vehicles, on the basis of the results of two years' profits in the middle of a deep recession, although just last week that company reached the top of the league for heavy truck sales in the United Kingdom.
The matter is urgent because it is clear from what the Secretary of State said that a deal with General Motors is all but signed, sealed and delivered. Irrevocable steps may be taken on the basis of assurances satisfactory to an easily satisfied Government but unlikely to be satisfactory to the House.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a matter of specific importance that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the disposal of the various divisions of British Leyland.
I regret that I must give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the same answer as I gave to his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I do not consider the matter which he has raised as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. None of us would wish to challenge your ruling, and I do not do so, but I know that you are aware of the deep concern of many constituents, including mine, about their future and the future of the firms on which they depend. Will you say whether, later this week, you might decide that the matter is so urgent that you will entertain an application under Standing Order No. 10?

Mr. Speaker: That is a purely hypothetical question. I must take into account what other opportunities are available to raise such matters.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Education (Amendment) Act 1986
2. Australia Act 1986
3. Poole Borough Council Act 1986
4. Berkshire Act 1986
5. British Railways Act 1986

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Gas Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 6th March 1986.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 6th March may continue until Ten o'clock, whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 7th March.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 45 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatiory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—


(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Gas Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

The whole House will be aware of the importance of the Gas Bill to which this motion seeks to apply a timetable. The Bill seeks to benefit managers and employees in the industry, consumers, and all those who will have an opportunity to own a stake in the industry.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will be able to explain the full merits of the measure more cogently than I could hope to do. I will, however, make this comment. I believe that the Bill typifies the Government's positive attitude to industry. Industry should be freed from the unnecessary constraints imposed upon it by politicians: and freed to enable people to participate directly in its success. It is, of course, a policy to which we are deeply committed. Thus, there is a general expectation that the Bill will complete its procedures in both Houses of Parliament and be enacted in the current Session. The Government must protect their business to ensure that this is so.

Even before the general election in June 1983 we had a clear outline of what we would do. Our 1983 manifesto states:
In the next Parliament, we shall seek
means of
increasing … private capital into the gas and electricity industries".

This commitment was renewed in the Queen's Speech at the opening of Parliament with an explicit undertaking to introduce a measure to permit the transfer of the assets of the British Gas Corporation to the private sector.

Nor is the policy the product of commitment. It has been subject to close and continued examination. Just one month after the election my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy initiated a study by his Department into the feasibility and nature of the privatisation that should take place. In this way, the industry was examined for more than one and a half years before the options and arguments were put to the Cabinet. This measured and considered process resulted in the legislation which was introduced into the House on 28 November.

The proposals have in addition been subjected already to vigorous scrutiny inside Parliament. Consideration of


the Bill so far in Standing Committee is evidence of that. More than 20 hours of debate have been devoted to clause 4 alone: while clause 7 was discussed for just over 30 hours. I do not deny that the Bill deserves careful attention, but on present form only 13 clauses in 85 hours have received this careful attention. I fear that we do not have available the 340 hours in Committee that it would take to consider just as thoroughly the remaining 53 clauses and five schedules to the Bill.

None the less, the timetable motion before us would allow the rest of the Bill to be discussed in Committee in a structured way. If the Committee continued to sit on the same basis as it does at present, there would be time for a further 12 sittings before it had to report to the House. In addition, there can he a debate until midnight on the Floor of the House for the Report stage, and a further three hours for the Third Reading debate.

More generally, I should point out that this is the first timetable motion before us since we have had the benefit of the report of the Select Committee on Procedure on public Bill procedure, which was produced in April last year. In no way do I wish to pre-empt what I know will be a constructive discussion when we debate that report. I hope to provide time for it to be debated in the very near future, but in these circumstances it behoves me to say a few words about the practice of timetabling, as well as about this motion.

One aspect of the present system about which the Committee was most critical was the many hours a Bill could spend in Standing Committee before a timetable motion was moved. It has been argued that this leads to such an uneven distribution of time spent on different provisions of a Bill that the later clauses may receive little or no consideration. I can see some force in this line, but I believe that a balance needs to be struck.

Against this argument there is the view of those, of whom I am one, who believe that we should proceed by informal agreement as far as we can. We should not rush to impose guillotines on Bills on which it is ultimately possible to reach agreement. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill was controversial, but completed its passage without the need for a timetable motion, despite more than 145 hours in Committee. Similarly, in the last Session, there was the Water (Fluoridation) Bill. Nevertheless, I take note of the Committee's concern that there should be earlier timetable motions to ensure adequate consideration of the later parts of a Bill. In this spirit, I invite the House to take note that this motion is moved after fewer than 90 hours in Standing Committee. That makes it an earlier timetable motion than both of those passed last Session in respect of the Local Government Bill and the Transport Bill.

Measured consideration is not achieved by providing timetable motions which merely allow more hours for debate on the remainder of the Bill, or which are imposed after 50 or 60 hours in Committee instead of 80 or 90. This motion, like previous timetable motions, not only prescribes the date by which the Standing Committee must have reported to the House, but makes provision for the allocation of time in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House for Report and Third Reading by reference to a Business Committee and a Business Sub-Committee.

The referral to a Business Committee and Sub-Committee is the key to the sensible consideration of the rest of the Bill. It provides an opportunity for those who

are experienced in these matters and, in the case of the Sub-Committee, those who are most closely acquainted with the Bill's provisions, to discuss the timing and divide the available hours appropriately between clauses.

When the idea of a Business Committee was put forward by the Labour Government on 4 November 1947, Mr. Chuter Ede, the then Home Secretary, said that the Government were desirous when a guillotine procedure had to be followed that
both sides should have an opportunity of making an effective contribution towards setting, up the Guillotine which is to be operated".—[Official Report, 4 November 1947; Vol. 443, c. 1736.]

I assure the House that that is no less the case today. Although we may be sharply divided about the substance of a Bill, I hope we can still agree about the way in which that substance can be properly but expeditiously considered.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should detain the House further. I believe that the motion represents a realistic way for us to debate the Gas Bill in the context of the timing constraints which always exist within the parliamentary framework. Nor are those constraints necessarily unwelcome to those outside this Chamber. The gas industry, and a nation of potential shareholders, keenly await the passage of the Bill. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Peter Shore: It is customary for the Leader of the House to open our all-too-frequent guillotine debates with a short speech stating in summary form the purpose of the Bill, often its principal provisions and why the debate that has already taken place in Committee should be curtailed. That familiar pattern was repeated this afternoon, with an interesting postscript about the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which I hope will be debated by the House soon.
The shortest section of the right hon. Gentleman's exceptionally short speech was that devoted to the purposes of the Bill, and I understand why. Indeed, to be told that the Bill states the Government's positive attitude to industry is sufficient commentary on the lack of reasons contained in the speech of the Leader of the House.
It is no surprise to the Opposition that the Bill has nothing to do with the hallowed Tory objectives which normally accompany privatisation measures —the promotion of competition and efficiency. It has everything to do with the pressing requirements of this year's Budget. In short, the Bill is about rescuing the Chancellor of the Exchequer from making still more ferocious cuts in public expenditure or from increasing still further the weight of taxation on the economy.
In the autumn of this year the Government expect to raise between £6 billion and £8 billion from the sale of the British Gas Corporation—depending on the timing and the offered price. The sales of nationalised assets appear in the national accounts as negative public expenditure. The Government will thus be able to finance extra public expenditure—which they will not do—further to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, to which they might wish to make a contribution or, best of all, to cut taxation and thus sweeten the increasingly sour electorate in the penultimate Budget of this Parliament.
Alas for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's political strategy, the collapse of North sea oil prices this year will


result in a £5 billion drop in oil tax revenue. The greater part of the proceeds of the sale of the British Gas Corporation will be absorbed by making good the shortfall in North sea taxes. If that vast sum were not available, the Chancellor would have to contemplate either increasing taxation by up to 5p in the pound—a standard rate of 35p—or slashing public expenditure by another £5 billion.
The House should be aware of the magnitude of this sale. Government revenues, for some years, have been fortified by selling publicly owned assets. In the six years from 1979 to 1985, the Government raised £6,650 million by selling publicly owned industries. The sale of the British Gas Corporation will equal the total sum raised in the past six years. If previous sales can be described as selling the silver, then the sale of the British Gas Corporation is the rest of the contents of the house—the tapestries, the pictures, the furniture, the carpets, the chandeliers and a substantial mortgage on the house itself.
We have never had such a vivid demonstration of the subordination of long-term industrial policy to the short-term exigencies of financial and electoral pressures. It is no wonder that the Leader of the House hurriedly skated over this section of his speech and no wonder that he could not bring himself to admit that the Budget imperative and electoral calculations were the true reasons for the Bill.
The British Gas Corporation is one of the outstanding success stories of public ownership. It serves 16 million households and 35 million people. In the past 20 years it has switched its source of supply to the North sea and now provides a national piped gas supply from one end of the country to the other. It has captured the largest part of the rapidly growing domestic central heating market and it has a major share in the space heating market for industrial and commercial users. It is profitable and directly contributes to Government revenue from the taxation on its profits, through a negative external financing limit of £176 million and by the £500 million raised through the gas levy.
It is a nice paradox that the Government have made only three serious complaints against the industry in the past seven years. First, its showrooms were too successful, especially in the sale of gas appliances, in competition with other sellers. Secondly, its main product, gas, was too cheap and too competitive in relation to other energy suppliers. It had to be curbed by a Government imposed levy and raise its prices by 10 per cent. above inflation for three years running. Thirdly, it was too enterprising, having won for itself a substantial stake in North sea oil exploration and exploitation and having played a pioneering role in onshore oil development at Wytch farm. The British Gas Corporation has been forced to sell those profitable diversifications by Government decree. Therefore, there are no arguments on grounds of efficiency, enterprise, industrial relations, prices, profitability or productivity to be advanced in favour of the Bill. The Labour party is absolutely right to oppose it and to point out the muddle and damage that will follow the attempt to establish a giant private monopoly to take the place of the British Gas Corporation and then to attempt to regulate that monopoly for the benefit of consumers and the long-term national interest.
There are formidable problems involved. The transfer from public to private monopoly produces a radical change in the corporation's philosophy and in the dominant

influences that will guide its future conduct. If the corporation's primary objective is no longer to serve the public interest, but instead to reward its shareholders, then we may ask: what are the implications for prices? What effect will it have on safety standards? How will short-term profit considerations be accommodated with long-term development needs? Who will decide depletion policy? What will be the strategy on imports and exports?
The Secretary of State for Energy would like to rid himself of his responsibilities, but he cannot. Thus, we have the complex new institutional set-up of the Director General of Gas Supply, Ofgas, the Gas Users' Council, the crucial guidelines on the licence — published a day before Second Reading —and the fallback of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
I am not surprised that my right hon. and hon. Friends have been wholly absorbed in Committee with the first part of part I. Within the timetable laid down in this guillotine motion, a further 52 or 53 clauses will fall to be considered, including the whole of the important and controversial part II, under which the corporation is turned into a public limited company and arrangements made for its disposal to private shareholders.
Among the matters that should be fully debated—not under the limitation of the guillotine —are the arrangements being made to sell great blocks of shares not to the public but to investors in New York, Germany and Japan. What limits will be placed on foreign ownership? Will there be a golden share for the Secretary of State? If so, in what areas of decision-making will he have override powers?
This is a totally unnecessary and destructive Bill. There are dangers in it for the consumer and for the national interest. It is merely adding insult to injury to deny the House and the country the advantage of a full and rigorous scrutiny of its provisions. We shall therefore vote against this guillotine.

Dr. Michael Clark: I am pleased to be able to discuss the timetable motion, because it is an important measure which will ensure that the Bill gets through for the benefit of a variety of people, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said.
It is important for consumers that the Bill goes through, so that we can privatise a resource of great value to the country. If we compare it with previous privatisations, we can say that employees will want to have their shares in this company so that they can participate in the company's equity.
In Committee we have spent a long time talking about many issues and have reached only clause 13 out of 66 clauses. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) was kind enough to give us a dissertation on dog breeding.

Mr. Hardy: No.

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman intended to give a dissertation on dog breeding, but was called to order, which prevented us from enjoying his dissertation. We heard about the grubbing up of hedgerows, and we had an interesting lesson on the Inclosure Acts. I have enjoyed all of the hon. Gentleman's informative talks, but we must make progress.

Mr. Hardy: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reference to the Inclosure Acts concerned the possibility


that private enterprise would have the power—without any consideration of the matter by the Government—to destroy boundary features which are required by law? I was seeking to ensure that the law was not brought into disrepute, and that was a perfectly logical and reasonable arrangement. I have certainly not tried to give a dissertation on dog breeding, though that would have been better than the Bill.

Dr. Clark: I concede that the hon. Gentleman referred to enclosures when we were talking about the compulsory purchase of land. We enjoyed his contribution, which delayed the Bill a little longer and contributed to the timetable motion. The Bill will be approved by the House in due course, and we should get it to the House rather than have it stuck in Committee night after night.
There are many clauses still to be discussed. I should like to discuss three important groups of clauses which will never be reached if we do not accept the timetable motion. They are all of great value to the consumer. We passed clauses 12 and 13, which deal with the calorific value of gas, rather quickly. We knew then that the timetable motion would be put before the House, and we were already speeding up in expectation of it.
We still have to discuss clauses 16 and 17, which refer to standards. They are vital to the consumer. Clause 16 relates to standard pressures of gas supply. Without these standard pressures, we could have pilot flames blowing out and dangers occurring in gas appliances. Consumers will be at risk if we do not have standard pressures.
We also need standards of purity, or gas may contain toxic chemicals and elements which when burnt could poison consumers. We also need, for fairness' sake, a standard calorific value. If gas is supplied below the expected calorific value the consumer pays more for his heat than he should, because gas is measured by volume rather than by calorific value. Clause 16 is vital to ensure that the consumer is protected by a set of standards and is buying a uniform product properly supplied.

Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman is talking about standard requirements, but the clauses are almost standard. They are substantially those included in the Gas Act 1972, which have been carried forward. They need less scrutiny because they are already substantially in place. He is making a bogus point.

Dr. Clark: I am grateful for that contribution. When we reach clauses 16 and 17 in two or three nights' time, I hope that they will go through extremely quickly, because they are standard clauses.
Clause 17 refers also to meter standards, to ensure that the consumers have meters that measure gas accurately, so that they pay for what they have received.
I come now to clause 18. In Committee, many hours were spent talking about the fact that we must have safety in the gas industry. Of course we must, but unless we reach clause 18 we shall miss an important safety aspect. The clause provides that part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 will be extended to include protection to the public from the dangers of transmitting gas through pipes —dangers from fire and explosion and the injuries that result. We must ensure that the clause receives fair and proper discussion.
I am sure that other hon. Members will wish to comment on other clauses, but I wish to deal with clauses 28, 29 and 30. They are important. They enable the

Director General of Ofgas to investigate complaints and ensure that the Bill's provisions are properly administered. Clause 31 provides for how those complaints will be referred to the Director General and how the Gas Users Council will have an opportunity to pass complaints to him for his investigation.
Clause 36 is important. Consumers will be disappointed if delay in discussing the initial clauses means that we do not reach clause 36, which refers to the price that may be charged for reselling gas. This is of interest to tenants who are charged by their landlords for their gas. The clause ensures that those tenants, often elderly people or students in bedsitters, are not overcharged for the gas that their landlords supply.
In Committee we have had a number of discussions about the units by which gas is measured. We have talked about therms, BTUs, joules and gigajoules. Clause 47 tells us that a therm means 105·506 megajoules. The gigajoules about which we all liked talking must therefore be about 9·48 therms, as I worked out last night. We could use the round figure of 10 therms to a gigajoule. It may be of interest to hon. Members, in particular Opposition Members, to know something about where the word "joules" came from.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is very interesting, but I do not see that it has much relevance to the motion.

Dr. Clark: I am concluding my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Joule was a physicist from Salford. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) would like to know that. He was instructed by a Professor Rowlands and I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might like to know that as well.
When Joule was experimenting to find a relationship between heat and energy, he realised that too much of the energy being put into the apparatus that he had devised was making sound. Energy was being dissipated as sound. If we are not careful, in Committee we shall also find too much energy being dissipated as sound.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I do not suppose that any of us are surprised to be here, but the Government have brought in the guillotine motion with indecent haste. We have been told that we have reached the 14th clause out of 66. Despite what the hon. Member for Rockford (Dr. Clark) said, I do not think that anyone who reacts our proceedings in Committee will find anything said that was not relevant or urgent.
As the Leader of the House said, the Bill is important. It is the biggest act of privatisation that has ever been witnessed and yet we expect it to go through the House from just before Christmas to the beginning of March, when a great deal of the justification for it has not been provided by the Government.
There has been no statement on whether there will be an allowance for the import and export of gas. That forms a major part of the Bill's background. It is unreasonable for the Government to say that we should get the Bill through the House of Commons before they have deigned to make a policy statement on gas trading. That is one reason why we should not be expected to rush through the remaining clauses.
Those of us who have opposed the Bill haw been extremely worried at the way the Government have been


treating the opposition —whether constructive or deliberate. They have not tried to justify their case. They have told us constantly that we have merely to trust that when the Bill goes through and the mechanisms are created everything will be all right. We are not getting the information, and it seems to me that we are entitled to press this case harder than passing the motion would allow. In spite of what the Secretary of State said at Question time today, I suspect that the Government know there is very strong opposition, not just to the privatisation of the BGC, but to the way the Government are doing it. The privatisation does not meet any of the criteria that even the Conservative philosophy would expect. It does not create wider competition. It does not stimulate any new areas of competition. On the contrary, it creates a vast blue chip private monopoly, which is neither adequately regulated nor exposed fully to the competition which could be available.
The one benefit that I hope we may get once the guillotine falls is that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) will feel slightly less inclined to stay in his self-imposed silence and will force the pace on these issues, about which I know he feels strongly, and about which the Conservative Members have been strangely silent. The Government have failed to satisfy me and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) about gas supplies to towns in Scotland which are remotely supplied by tankers rather than connected to the pipeline network. In spite of statements from the Minister that the Bill covers that, he was unable to demonstrate that the Bill is satisfactory in that regard. An amendment is still required to the licence to cover that.
The Bill is being forced through. It has no ideological justification. The Government have accepted precisely one amendment so far, which is to change the proposed Gas Users Council back to the Gas Consumers Council, which is what it was before the Government changed the name. That is the sum of what has been achieved.

Mr. Michael Portillo: Is the hon. Gentleman not forgetting the change to clause 4 which introduces a duty on the director general to promote competition in the industry? The hon. Gentleman was probably absent at the time.

Mr. Bruce: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to explain the great changes that he feels have been made.
The Government have told us that the Bill meets the criteria which they maintain they want it to meet. When pressed, they simply tell us that the Bill covers it. They do not explain how it will work. We know that the Government expect opposition to this Bill in another place, and they are anxious to force it through with their majority here. They know that they will have some difficulty there, where amendments will be proposed to introduce elements of competition to try to break up the centralised monolithic BGC. I diverge from the Labour party on that. It is anxious to retain a centralised monopoly, even if private, presumably because Labour would renationalise it. The Labour party will not be able to renationalise the company, so it is important that the privatised BGC is subjected to the maximum competition and broken up as far as possible so that it is much more transparent and accountable.
The regulatory authority should have real powers to control the private monopoly in the country's best interests. Any amendment which would impose an effective regulatory body is ruled out of order by the money resolution. That is regrettable. The Government cannot say that because the regulatory body cannot be amended here, a future Government could not introduce stronger regulations. I hope that the prospectus for the BGC is published —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman recognises that what he is saying is outside the motion. I hope that he will address himself to it.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The fact remains that we are being forced to accept a Bill which has been pushed through with indecent haste. That means that we cannot consider many factors properly, such as the need for a stronger regulatory body. That can be put into the Bill in another place. I hope that that will happen, and that the Government do not subsequently use their majority here to overturn any decision that the other place makes.
The Government are not justified in guillotining the Bill in view of the speed with which they are introducing this major privatisation. Nor have they at any stage attempted to argue their case through. It is an example of the Government forcing a Bill through because they are desperate to get their sticky hands on the money to bail themselves out before inevitable defeat at the next general election.

Mr. Michael Portillo: It often happens that different witnesses to a single event can give very different accounts of what occurred. Listening to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), I did not recognise what has happened in Committee. I recall that an amendment has been passed which the hon. Member apparently does not remember. He described the Government's response as inadequate. I think that we have had very full replies from my right hon. and hon. Friends, some of which we want to consider further. The hon. Gentleman referred to me as being silent, but I feel guilty for wearying the Committee too frequently. I did not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description.
I am very pleased to support this timetable motion. It was clear on Second Reading that this is a Bill which the House very much wants to pass. It is therefore reasonable for the Government to be allowed to go ahead with their privatisation programme, provided that sufficient consideration is given to the Bill.
The timetable motion proposes another 12 sittings, which seems to be adequate and appropriate for the task. The Bill has, from the outset, been of sufficient complexity and controversy for the need for a timetable motion always to be on the cards. That might lead some Members who have not been involved in the discussions to imagine that the Bill fitted into a stereotype—the Opposition filibuster, Government Back Benchers saying nothing very much and the Government making no concessions. The discussions on this Bill do not fit that stereotype, although some Opposition Members have strayed a little from time to time. At least it will be difficult for the House to understand how dog breeding, hedgerows and dissertations on sexism fit into the Bill.


Nevertheless, I pay tribute to Opposition Members for their fine speeches and contributions and for the high standard of research that has gone into them. There has been a great deal of unanimity in our wish to pursue topics such as the status of the consumer under the new arrangements. That has interested all hon. Members. The Committee has been helped considerably by the availability of the Energy Select Committee report, which was published early in our proceedings. That has put the Government in some difficulty, as they have had to respond ad hoc to certain of the Committee's recommendations before they were ready to reply to the report in detail, which, of course, they will do in due course.
There is another facet to the stereotype, which does not apply in this case. There have been many speeches from Conservative Members. Many of them have been directed at a common interest—how the customer will fare under the new arrangements when the BGC passes to the private sector.
It is not true that the Government have steadfastly refused to accept amendments. They have accepted two. They accepted one amendment from the Opposition. Although the Opposition do not appear to be very grateful to the Government for having accepted their amendment, it was substantial. I am only sorry that the right hon. and hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) seem now to deride her achievement. I thought that it was substantial.
The other amendment that was accepted by the Government stood in my name and in the names of several of my hon. Friends. It related to a new duty under clause 4. Again it was a very important amendment, which the Government accepted in a very generous spirit.
My right hon. and hon. Friends gave interesting explanations on a number of other proposed amendments that were withdrawn, voted down or not moved. A number of their replies have settled matters for me, but some of them have not gone so far as that. They have left me, and perhaps other members of the Standing Committee, with food for thought. I hope that the amendments have provided the Government with food for thought and that it will be possible to return to a number of them on Report. Some of the members of the Select Committee on Energy did not spend 85 hours in the Standing Committee, but they have a considerable interest in the Bill. I am sure that they will be anxious to make a contribution on Report and Third Reading.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the Standing Committee spent a considerable time on clauses 4 and 7. It was appropriate to consider those clauses in great detail, but the debates were very wide-ranging and a number of general points were raised. They enabled virtually every point of principle to be debated to some extent. Therefore, we ought to have a slightly more disciplined discussion of later clauses because so many general points and points of principle have already been discussed.
A large number of important clauses have yet to be considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) gave his selection of clauses which he hopes will be discussed. Clauses 19 to 21, which govern the conditions for the competitive supply of gas by different gas producers to industrial consumers, are very important and the Committee will want to consider them. However, I accept that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and

Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) may make the point that those clauses are borrowed from previous legislation. Clauses 31 to 40 contain very important provisions relating to the consumer which the Committee will want to study in detail.
The timetable motion will provide the Standing Committee with a suitable opportunity to discuss these important matters. However, there will be increased pressure upon all of us to confine our remarks to what is in the strictest sense relevant and to make them as terse and pithy as they can possibly be.
When I began my speech I said that I disagreed with the hon. Member for Gordon, but I agree with him about the difficulty of proceeding without knowing what the import-export regime will be. I made that point in Committee, but it arises with particular force as we think about the timetable motion.
It is difficult to judge the full effects of the Bill until there is a policy statement by the Government about the import and export of gas. We need to know what the market conditions will be at the point where the gas is produced: whether it will be sold to somebody who will supply the final customer or whether it will be sold directly to the final customer. We do not yet know whether there will be a free market for the import and export of gas, or whether an independent supplier will have the option of selling his gas to a body other than British Gas if he ins not interested in providing gas directly to the customer. Until we know the answer to that question, it is difficult to judge whether the proposed regulatory regime is appropriate.
During the proceedings in Standing Committee I referred to this as a bit of a jigsaw. I said that some of the pieces are missing and that it is difficult to gauge what the final picture will be. I appreciate that it is by no means easy for the Government to decide what kind of regime is appropriate. These are complicated matters, and I know that the Government would like to be able to make an enduring statement. There is no point in making a statement that will soon have to be reviewed. I realise that it takes time for these matters to be settled. Nevertheless, this matter is of crucial importance.
I pay tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends for their co-operation in providing us at an early stage with the draft authorisation for British Gas. I pay tribute to them also for the excellent briefing that they supplied to all the members of the Standing Committee. Therefore, I believe that the Government will want to settle as soon as possible this very important question about the import-export regime. All hon. Members will want to be able to have information about it before Report and Third Reading.
With that proviso, I am happy to support the timetable motion. If we are to be deprived of potentially 300 hours of further debate in Standing Committee, that is a deprivation up with which I shall be most happy to put.

Mr. Michael Cocks: The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) referred to another piece of the jigsaw falling into place. That has happened for me this evening. I notice that one member of the Government team is missing from the Treasury Bench, the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), the Under-Secretary of State for Energy. Throughout the Standing Committee proceedings I have persistently suggested that, because of his comparative innocence and naivety, he has not been included in the discussions about


the matters of a more shady character, such as timetable motions. I suspect that his absence from the Treasury Bench is probably because he has not been told about this debate. It will come as a surprise to him tomorrow when he finds the proceedings moving along a little more quickly than they have done so far.
It is most appropriate that I should speak in a debate on a guillotine motion. It is the first speech that I have made on the Floor of the House since I was guillotined by my constituency management committee. A majority of the management committee decided that I was no longer a fit and proper person to represent them in Parliament. I shall not dilate on that theme, or even mention the fact that the majority of those who thought that I was not a fit and proper person to be a Member of Parliament came into the constituency from another constituency after the redistribution of seats that took place before the last general election.
I have been a Government business manager and I therefore understand the need for Governments to move timetable motions from time to time. On one occasion my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and I had five timetable motions on the Thursday business statement. They were put through during the following week. You may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the unfortunate circumstances that led to that build-up of pressure, but as soon as we had the results of the Thurrock and Rotherham by-elections we were able to proceed. This Government are under no such pressure. There was a need for timetable motions at that time. The five Bills that were under discussion on that occasion were most admirable measures. They were well thought out. It had taken a long time to polish and hone them. That does not apply to this Bill.
When the Leader of the House opened the debate, he referred to the report of the Select Committee on Procedure. Leaving aside our party political differences, I am full of goodwill towards the Leader of the House. However, it seemed to me that he was even more oblique than usual. A thick fog seemed to surround any effort to penetrate what he meant to say. On one occasion in the House he was quite flattered when I said he was like Prince K. S. Ranjisinhji in the way he gently dabbed the ball to off or glanced it to leg. In his reply the Leader of the House said he preferred to be likened to Jessup. I was too polite to point out that Jessup's nickname was "The Croucher". On this occasion the right hon. Gentleman crouched so low that he practically disappeared from sight. No doubt he will make himself plain in due course.
The Leader of the House spoke about measured considerations and quoted the right hon. Chuter Ede in the brief post-war Attlee Government. In Committee I have pressed on the Government the views of Lord Morrison of Lambeth about the gas nationalisation in that post-war period. Those views were endorsed during the passage of the 1972 Act by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Secretary of State for Transport, so things have regressed since then. A timetable on this Bill is inappropriate, because as we unravel what I will politely call the Government's thinking behind the Bill, and as we try to tear away the successive veils and shrouds, it becomes quite clear that the Bill has not been thought out in the same way as the original nationalisation proposals were thought out.
When we ask the Government what estimates and extrapolations have been made by the Department, the answer that comes back, whether it is in 10 sentences or 10 paragraphs, boils down to "No." Beyond the doctrinaire decision to privatise this industry, there has been very little forward thinking about the effect it will have. Hon. Members will know that the nationalisation of the gas industry took place only after prolonged study, and the Heyworth report was the most substantial contribution to the thinking.
In Committee, we have not yet had any real information about the effects on safety, research and development, and the guarantees that will be given to people who are working in the industry. I hope that some information about those matters will be forthcoming when the Committee resumes.
I notice the appearance of the Under-Secretary, and I apologise for not giving him notice that I intended to mention him. It came as a complete surprise to me that he was absent from the Front Bench, and that was when the piece of the jigsaw mentioned by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate fell into place. I happily apologise, but I did not realise until I noted his absence that my worst fears were to be confirmed.
The Government have not properly thought out the effects on all the people I have mentioned. There has also been an effect on Opposition Members in the Standing Committee. When we were having a debate the other night, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) told the Committee that the showrooms in Padiham in his constituency had been closed. I asked him to give us more information, because it struck me that an unkind mind might interpret that punishing a Back-Bench Member of the Opposition for daring to raise something appertaining to his own constituency. My theory is burgeoning, because when I arrived in London this weekend I found a letter addressed to my wife. It was a disconnection notice from the North Thames gas board.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Has the right hon. Gentleman paid the bill?

Mr. Cocks: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has a suspicious mind. The bill had already been paid, as I was able to establish on the blower this morning. I was told to disregard the disconnection notice. But imagine the effect on a housewife of opening a thing like that.
Hon. Members may think that is not an entirely serious point, but if evidence continues to build up, then it will be drawn formally to the attention of the Leader of the House. Although the Leader of the House is not present, I hope he will study the remarks that are made in his absence. [HON. MEMBERS: Where is he?] Hon. Members are asking where he is. I have to say to them that the only person who works harder in the House than the Leader of the House is the Patronage Secretary. I hope that nothing disparaging will be said about the Leader of the House, because he has multifarious duties. I hope he will study the remarks that have been made and that the Government will think about them and be much more forthcoming.
I hope also that when we resume in Committee the Government will be much more forthcoming about how they see the future of this industry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, this industry is one of the great success


stories. Through lack of foresight, the Government are in danger of spoiling it. I hope that at the end of this debate, when we get a reply from the Government, more information will be forthcoming about all the points raised time and again in Committee.

Mr. John Watts: I hope that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) will not find that British Gas plc will send him a disconnection notice for a bill that he has already paid.
As I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), I was pleasantly surprised to find that it contained few of the ritual protestations about the death of free speech in this House. In my two and a half years in the House, speeches like that have seemed to be part of the ritual of the opposition to timetable motions. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's speech was foreshadowed by the deafening silence that greeted the announcement of the timetable motion last Thursday.
This Standing Committee has been one of the most good natured that it has been my privilege to serve upon, and I join my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), in paying tribute to the well-informed and interesting speeches from both sides on the Committee. I hesitate to suggest that the Opposition tactic was to filibuster. I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill two years ago when it set a record of 150 hours, so perhaps I have a somewhat generous view of what constitutes filibustering.
I welcome the full consideration given in Standing Committee to certain clauses which have now, thankfully, been disposed of, not least those which refer to the duties of the Secretary of State and the proposed Director General, and the terms of the proposed licence to the British Gas Corporation.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), suggested there was indecent haste in coming forward with this timetable motion. I cannot agree with him, just as I cannot agree with his complaint that contributions from the Conservative side of the Committee were strangely absent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate commented on the remarkable fact that two witnesses to the same event can see different things. To be a witness to an event, one must be present at the event. Rather than contributions from our side of the Committee being strangely absent, the hon. Member for Gordon was markedly absent from our proceedings on a number of occasions. I have no doubt that his failure to recollect the important amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate, with my support and that of my hon. Friends, and the generous and gracious way in which it was accepted by the Government can be accounted for by the fact that he was not present on that occasion.

Mr. Bruce: I certainly was.

Mr. Watts: If the hon. Gentleman was present, his lapse of memory is all the more regrettable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) and I sought to make an important amendment to the Bill to impose a duty on the Director General to promote competition in the energy supply sector in general and not merely in the gas industry. I was disappointed that my proposals were greeted with derision by Labour

Members, not least because the amendment was suggested to me by an important trade union in the energy supply sector. In view of the scathing criticism of my proposal, I concluded that no point would be served by pressing it to a vote, so I withdrew the amendment.
Those examples show that the allegation that there have been few contributions from Conservative Members does not bear examination.
I welcome the full consideration that the Committee has been giving to important clauses, but I feel that without the structure of a timetable there will be a tendency for the concern and commitment of hon. Members on both sides to lead them into being rather too thorough in their detailed consideration of the Bill.
The Committee has a clear duty to give the Bill close scrutiny, but it is important that it paces itself so that all the important parts of the Bill receive that scrutiny, and so that this important reform can be enacted at the earliest opportunity. It will bring many benefits to our national economy, to domestic and industrial gas consumers and to employees of the BGC, who will have an opportunity to participate in the ownership of this successful and important industry. There is a danger that the Committee could be so assiduous in the discharge of its duties that the reform will fall for lack of time. That would be a disaster. The timetable motion will ensure that the dual objectives of adequate consideration and the passage of the Bill in this Session are achieved.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney advanced the interesting notion that the timetable motion was connected with the 1Budget, which is due to be presented on 18 March. The motion requires us to report the Bill by 6 March, and it must have two more days for Report and Third Reading. After that, it has to go to another place. Even with the great skills of our business managers, it is unlikely that this important measure will be enacted before 18 March.
Of the clauses which we have not yet reached, and which we might take some time to reach without a timetable motion, I am particularly interested in the common carrier provisions in the clauses after clause 19. This aspect of the legislation first excited my interest in gas matters.
Energy has not always been foremost in my interests in the House or outside, but about 18 months ago one of the major industrial firms in my constituency told me that it was having difficulty in securing a gas supply from the BGC or any other supplier.
In my naivety, I said, "This is simple. The Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act gives you the right to purchase a supply from a gas producer and make use of the mains of the BGC to bring the supply to your premises. Why do you not make use of that Act?" I was told that the good intentions of existing legislation had become a dead letter because the British Gas Corporation refused to specify the terms on which it would make its pipeline network available to those seeking a private supply and because the BGC leaned on gas producers to dissuade them from entering into private supply contracts with industrial consumers.
I believe that the clauses after clause 19 will considerably strengthen provisions to stimulate competition in the supply of gas to industry. They represent a considerable advance on existing legislation. In Committee I shall seek to press Ministers for an assurance that my understanding of how the provisions will operate is correct and that the Bill opens up more competition in


the commercial supply of gas. If it were not for the timetable motion, the time that is necessary to consider that part of the Bill might not be available to us.
Although my experience in the House is relatively short, I believe that the workings of the House, and particularly of its Standing Committees, would be better accomplished if all Bills were timetabled before being sent to Committee. That is the only way to ensure adequate consideration of important clauses in important legislation, and it would also benefit the Opposition parties. Without the restraints of a timetable, they may feel under an obligation to spin out the time. I do not suggest that that has happened on this Bill, but there is a tendency for Opposition parties to feel that they have to take all the time at their disposal. Otherwise, some in the House or outside —perhaps their general management committees —may feel that they had not been doing their duty by opposing Bills as vigorously as they should. However, the adoption of such tactics may lead to disproportionate consideration being given to early clauses which may not be the most important parts of the legislation, with the result that too little time is left for the later clauses. Therefore, I firmly favour the principle of timetabling and the motion before us.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I should start by responding to the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who referred to speeches that I had made about the Inclosure Acts, piracy and one or two other matters. The hon. Gentleman ought to recall that those speeches were made after the Government decided to introduce the guillotine.
The hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) was the third of the 12 Conservative Back Benchers on the Standing Committee to speak in the debate, and it will be interesting to see where the other Conservative speakers come from. Nine of the Conservative Members on the Committee have not yet spoken, and the only one in the Chamber at present is the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who is given to reading improving works of literature. We are told that the debates in Committee have been interesting and good-humoured, and one would imagine that they would have been in the Chamber to justify the Government's decision.
The hon. Member for Slough spoke in favour of a timetable, and there is a powerful argument in its favour. Many concede that it is sensible, although it means that the Opposition have sacrificed their only weapon—time. Even so, the Opposition should always consider whether to agree to a timetable if the Government of the day are putting forward a measure that is both in the national interest and is democratically sound, having been included in a mandate. It must also be approached in a spirit of responsibility.
In his thin speech, the Leader of the House justified the guillotine by saying that the policy was in the Tory party mandate. It was in the mandate, but one would have imagined that as the idea had been so much in the Government's mind, by now they would have made clear all their intentions and provided all the relevant information. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, many questions remain unanswered, despite the Government's long commitment to the measure.
As we are still not adequately informed about the Government's proposals, and as there is a high-handed and arrogant approach that denies us basic information, the Government cannot complain that the Bill has been subjected to searching scrutiny. We have an obligation to the House to operate with searching diligence. I regret only that that diligence has not yet been adequately rewarded and recognised by the provision of vital items of information, a list of which I shall not repeat because my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney spelt them out. We need to know the Government's intentions. We need the relevant estimates, and we need to know by how much the Treasury will benefit from this act of piracy—I make no apology for repeating the reference that I first made in Committee last Thursday.
The Minister should understand that we are concerned about the people who work in British Gas. It is true that from time to time quiet murmurs of appreciation have emanated from the Government Benches, but some profound anxieties remain in the industry. For example, the Minister made it clear that one third of gas supplies produced by British Gas are vulnerable to change. If British Gas were to lose anything like that proportion of its provision to the private sector, the implications for those who work in the gas industry would be substantial. We are right to reflect their anxieties, because, as the Minister has recognised, British Gas is probably the most successful large commercial undertaking in these islands. It is successful because of the efforts of those who work in the industry. They deserve rather better than to be subject to the greed being displayed by the Government, although it is being displayed in less than offensive tones.
I referred in Committee to an anxiety expressed by a constituent, an employee of the National Bus Company, who had given excellent service but who was left in uncertainty about his superannuation. I am afraid that the good services of employees in the gas industry could be treated in the same way. The most important aspects of our consideration must reflect the national interest. Over the past 10 years British Gas has had an operating profit of £11,791 million. That is a substantial sum and we need to know whether the Government's proceeds from the sale of British Gas will be anything like the yield that British Gas has provided to the Treasury over the past 10 years.
It would be remarkably stupid if the Government were to accept, as the proceeds from a sale, a sum that was less than could be yielded from the industry's annual harvest. That would show a fecklessness which no other Parliament would have tolerated. Before we decide to go blissfully ahead and co-operate with the Government in a measure such as this, we are entitled to ask whether it is in the national economic interest. Our suspicions do not give rise to any reassurance on that point.
There are two other aspects of this matter. In Committee there have been murmurings from Tory Back Benchers and from Ministers about the need to promote competition. I can understand people wanting some competition. I can understand the entrepreneur wanting a share of the gas market in the densely populated areas, where there is high gas consumption. I wonder how many Conservative Members would regard with respect an entrepreneur who wished to supply gas to Caithness and Sutherland, or to other less populated areas of Britain which Conservative Members represent and claim to be


proud to serve. I am not sure that the competition argument will ever be as tenable as Conservative Members like to suggest.
Another aspect of the matter should give rise to serious concern, and the Minister has not satisfied us on that point yet. British Gas has a tremendously successful record in research and development.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has been saying but he has not been addressing himself carefully to the motion. I hope that he will consider the extent to which his remarks are relevant.

Mr. Hardy: I should have thought that my remarks were as relevant as, if not more relevant than, some of my speeches in Committee have been.
The House should not confer the power that a timetable motion provides and allow the Government to take dictatorial action that might threaten the research and development record of British Gas. There is a serious threat, because some of the profits from British Gas that have financed its superb record of research and development will be imperilled. We shall see yet another sector of British industry on the slippery slope to decline; a decline which has been very marked, and our progress down which has been accelerated in the past five years.
The House should always consider a timetable motion, but should do so recognising that the Government should never ask for a timetable motion until all the questions relevant to the Bill have been answered in Committee. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, questions have remained unanswered, and until answers are given, and there can be an assurance that the national interest is not being betrayed, the Opposition are entitled to maintain their steady determination. Perhaps we should retain some obduracy before allowing the Government to exercise their will.
The Government have an enormous majority, which has allowed them to operate in an atmosphere of arrogance. That is demonstrated by the absence from this debate of the majority of Tory Members who serve on the Committee. No doubt they will cheer when the timetable motion is approved, but I hope that in the period remaining we shall have at least sufficient time to discuss the rest of the Bill. That would be helped by the pithy contributions asked for by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo). If there are such pithy speeches from Conservative Members, I hope that none of them will speak at such a length that they will prevent proper consideration in Committee of the important clauses.
I do not know whether the Government will find it offensive if I say that they have exercised an arrogant and insensitive power, but that is the impression which I hope the country will feel has been created.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: On Second Reading hon. Members referred to the indecent haste with which the Government have forced us to consider the Bill. We have had no chance to digest the contents of the licence. The Government continued that indecent haste in Committee. We were honoured in Committee by the presence of the Secretary of State. I regret that he is not here now. The right hon. Gentleman has been talking to his right hon. and hon. Friends.

Perhaps he is trying to convince them of the Bill's value. Perhaps he is trying to convince them about something else. Perhaps the leadership is at stake.
The Standing Committee disregarded the Select Committee's work. The Select Committee spent time examining conditions in the industry in an attempt to guide the Standing Committee. There is no evidence that the Standing Committee considered the Select Committee's findings. I regret that some hon. Members who made recommendations in Select Committee failed to support them in the Standing Committee. That must have been embarrassing for them. The time spent by the Select Committee assisting the Standing Committee has been ignored. That brings the Select Committee system into disrepute. The Minister shakes his head. I hope that he will tell us later that he accepts our amendments, which are based upon the Select Committee's recommendations.

Dr. Michael Clark: In Committee, when similar comments were made by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), I said that note had been taken of the Select Committee's recommendations by Government Members and had been listened to carefully by Ministers. I said that proposals in the Bill acknowledged the Select Committee's recommendations, although not in the precise way suggested by the Select Committee.

Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Member is saying that words were used to get round the Select Committee's recommendations. That is what I said in Committee and he knows it to be right.
More time must be allowed for us to debate the Bill. The Bill proposes selling the nation's assets. II is an attempt by Government to increase the Treasury's wealth for a short-term political gain. Few people fail to see that. This is the economy of the pawnshop. The Government say that they must fulfil their manifesto commitment before the next election. But where will they get the money?
The Bill permits the largest denationalisation exercise ever witnessed. We are talking about £6 billion or £8 billion of income for the Treasury and about limiting the number of hours in which the Committee can digest the Bill.
Many members of the Standing Committee are not present today. But all Labour members of the Committee have been here because they are gravely concerned that the Committee has not been given sufficient time to consider fully major legislation.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Tory Whips are touring the Corridors trying to drag in their hon. Friends? I understand that they have been able to drag in four of their hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I overheard an hon. Lady tell a Tory Whip to something off. That shows the interest that Tory Members have in the Bill.

Mr. Lofthouse: I agree that it shows the disregard which Government Members have for the Bill.
We need more time because many Government Members have not had time to read the Bill or the Select Committee report. I challenged them about that in Committee. Obviously the Secretary of State has not had time to read the Bill. That is why we need more time.


During questions to the Secretary of State for Industry I expressed concern about rights of entry and I was told that the only right of entry was for safety purposes.

Clause 16 is headed
Entry for replacing, repairing or altering pipes
and states:
Any officer authorised by a public gas supplier, after seven clear days' notice to the occupier of any premises, or to the owner or lessee of any premises which are unoccupied, may at all reasonable times, on production of some duly authenticated document showing his authority, enter the premises for the purpose of—

(a) placing a new pipe in the place of any existing pipe which has already been lawfully placed; or
(b) repairing or altering any such existing pipe."

Clause 14 says that the officer may enter for the purpose of

"(a) inspecting the meters, fittings and works for the supply of gas;
(b) ascertaining the quantity of gas supplied;
(c) performing the duty imposed on the supplier by paragraph 1 or 2 above;
(d) exercising the power conferred on the supplier by paragraph 4(3) or 8(7) above; or
(e) in the case of premises where the supplier has reason to believe that a compressor or compressed air or extraneous gas is being used, inspecting the premises and ascertaining whether the provisions of paragraph 8 above are being complied with."

At least there have been certain protections while gas has been a nationalised industry —for example, avenues to Parliament and to the Gas Consumers Council. Is anyone in the House confident that the private sector will give careful consideration to, and not abuse its rights of entry into people's homes? I raised that point in Committee, but received no response.

The Committee took a responsible attitude and very little time has been wasted. Reference has been made to the dog stories of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), but outside of that, little time was wasted. The timetable does not allow sufficient time to complete the Bill.

We all know what this motion is about—it is about grabbing and privatising everything possible during the few short months left to the Government so that they can assist their friends who, in return, will assist them with a contribution to the Tory party.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I agree with all that my right hon. and hon. Friends have said about the Government's motives. It is regrettable that they have brought forward a timetable motion on an issue of such significance. There is no doubt that it is based on the dogma and doctrinaire attitude of the Government. The Opposition are well aware that privatisation is nothing more than a rip-off of national assets.
We must put this legislation into the correct context so that people can understand the importance of what is happening. The gas industry has an annual turnover of £7,000 million, it has more than 16 million customers, more than 112,000 employees and superannuated pensioners, net assets of more than £16 million, and makes a profit of £930 million in one year. That is the scale of the industry, and therefore the scale of the rip-off.
The Opposition have nationalised unprofitable industries—those that have been clapped out by private enterprise and turned into loss-making organisations.

There are few industries that we have nationalised through dogma—it has been in the national interest or because they have been clapped out by public enterprise.
However, the Conservative Government denationalises only profitable industries so that they can line the pockets of their friends in the City. I accept that they are not hypocritical about that. Perhaps we should learn a few lessons —they have been in power for centuries and learnt how to rip off the country. They desperately wanted to get back into power in 1979 so that they could carry on with the rip-off.

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—

Mr. Rogers: If the hon. Gentleman wants to speak, he must try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many Opposition Members are waiting patiently to participate in the debate.
The Government have tabled this motion because time is tight for them, and they want to make their pay-offs quickly. They are rushing through the legislation so that their friends in the City and the capitalists in this country —and, indeed, in many overseas—can make a killing from this industry as they have from others.
The hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) suggested that it was a good-natured Committee. I agree, although last Thursday was an exception. Hon. Members have enjoyed participating in the debates. However, the Government's responses to many of the issues raised have been wholly unsatisfactory, other than on the technical and legalistic points relating to the interpretation of the Bill. They have not compromised or accepted any reasonable amendment.
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) had managed to put through one amendment. That amendment simply changed the proposed title of Gas Users Council to Gas Consumers Council. As she said, who would want a body whose initials were GUC? That is about the measure of the Government's legislation.
The Government's responses have been poor and have disappointed the Committee. The civil servants provided excellent notes on clauses—which, indeed, were rather better than the Bill itself. Yet even with their help, we have had only doctrinaire answers. The Government continually say, "We are trying to increase competition." That is not the case—they are simply turning a profitable public monopoly into a profitable private monopoly to line the pockets of their friends rather than benefit the taxpayers.
The issues that we have already discussed in Committee have been complicated and range from the responsibilities of the new directorate and regulatory body to compulsory purchase —not only for access to pipelines but for land purchase to build pumping stations and ancillary works —the regulatory issues, the price formula and so on. The hon. Member for Southgate was right to say that many of those matters are nonsense until the Government adopt a proper import-export policy. The Committee also considered service to customers —some 27,000 people a year refer their complaints to the Gas Consumers Council and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people have service problems each year. We also discussed standing charges, disconnection, aspects of safety, resource development from the North sea, future investment and obligations to supply.


All those technical points on the transfer of massive public assets into private pockets pale into insignificance compared with the fact that more than 100,000 people are being transferred. The hypocrisy of the Government has been shown —when it suited them on the Westland affair, their cry was, "That is what the workers want." Never at any stage in this massive transfer of public assets have the Government consulted the workers in the gas industry. They do not have the guts or the gumption to do that. The Government's hypocritical stance has manifested itself completely in the Bill.
There is no security in this transfer for the workers who have given a lifetime to the industry. As was said earlier, the industry is composed of not just structures, equipment, land or showrooms; people are involved. When the Bill has gone through Parliament, especially the other place, I hope that we shall have been able to secure some sort of future for those people beyond vesting day. I have no confidence that a private monopoly will look upon its staff and give them the facilities in the way that British Gas does.
I am fed up with the Government saying how well British Gas is doing. If British Gas is doing so well, why do not the Government leave it alone? Throughout the Committee stage we have attempted to find the answers to those problems. We have not done so, and after the motion is approved by the House today we shall have to crash through the remaining clauses — clauses of enormous importance. No Conservative Member can accuse us of not tackling the Bill in a responsible manner, apart from some vague criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) after the guillotine motion was mentioned in Committee. We have searched and probed, trying to discover what the position will be.
Labour Members have acted responsibly. This massive transfer of public assets on a scale never before seen in Britain will require the most searching examination and that is why we deplore this timetable motion.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who always makes eloquent and interesting contributions to our debates, although we do not always agree. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown) made some dreadful suggestion about the Whips dragging me in, but I came entirely of my own volition. This important matter needs proper debate. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene and apologise, I am happy for him to do so.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I do not wish to apologise. I simply want to ask the hon. Gentleman if he would care to wait for a moment while I go to the Library and get a Bible for him to swear on.

Mr. Marlow: If the hon. Gentleman wants to get a Bible, I shall be quite happy to swear on it.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Whips have never forced him to do anything?

Mr. Marlow: There is quite a lot of truth in what my hon. Friend says.
The Government have been accused of arrogance. The Opposition always accuse the Government of arrogance when we debate a timetable motion. The world record for

the largest number of guillotine motions in any one Session or any one day belongs to the Labour party. It does not improve our deliberations on such issues if we accuse each other of arrogance.
I have spent quite a lot of time on various Committees. At the moment I am a member of the Committee which is examining the Housing and Planning Bill, on which there seems to be a certain amount of common ground, and we are having a great deal of sensible discussion. Previously I have been on Committees, such as that which discussed the Telecommunications Bill when we had hours of sterile discussion because the Opposition had been told by their paymasters, as they probably have in this case, that they must defeat, delay and hammer the Bill at all costs. I am not being critical, because that is true of Oppositions of whatever party.
The time seems to be coming when we shall have a more sensible way of dealing with such issues. Although I am not an expert on the Bill, I am pleased to see that the timetable motion—I call it that rather than a guillotine —is taking place after only 85 hours of debate and that procedures are being set out whereby time can be allocated sensibly for the future discussion of the Bill.
I am enthusiastic to get the Bill on the statute book because the whole country is enthusiastic to get the Bill on the statute book. If it is to be on the statute book, it must be properly debated, and I am sure that in the time remaining, in the procedures outlined by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, it will be properly debated.
I remember canvassing during the general election and every so often we would see a yellow van which belonged to British Telecom. Our manifesto committed us to privatising—or putting into proper public ownership—BT. There was some controversy about that, and, understandably, many workers in BT were worried. I can remember my helper, as helpers sometimes do, saying, "Look, there is one of those yellow vans. Let's move on quickly because we do not want to get bogged down." We did not do that. We stopped and discussed the matter. We answered queries and debated the issue with people from BT. But there is no doubt that at the time they were worried about the forthcoming privatisation.
The hon. Member for Rhondda said that we had not consulted the workers. Has he consulted the workers in BT since that company's privatisation? If he did, I think that he would find overwhelming support for the measure and overwhelming enthusiasm among the workers in that industry for what the Government have done. That is why, following the success of the privatisation of BT, we should move as rapidly, efficiently and effectively as we decently can to put this new and exciting measure on the statute book.

Dr. Michael Clark: The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said that there was no security in a privatised company, but does not the fact that 95 per cent. of BT employees have purchased shares in their company show that they feel that it is entirely secure, and is not exactly the same likely to happen with British Gas?

Mr. Marlow: It is generally agreed that the privatisation of BT was an overwhelming success. It is increasingly being seen as an overwhelming success for the taxpayer, the consumer and the work force. Workers were effectively encouraged to buy shares in their industry, and we are now reaping the benefits of that.


During the election campaign BT was an issue. Subsequently, I had quite a lot of correspondence from workers in BT before privatisation. They were worried about what would happen. They felt uncertain about the future. Since privatisation there has been nothing but enthusiasm—nothing but a success story.
I am not inviting them, but I have not yet had one letter from anybody in the gas industry complaining or worrying about the Bill. They are only too happy to follow the example of BT. They are only too enthusiastic to get the measure under way so that they can share in the success that they have seen their friends and brothers in BT share.
The Bill has been described as an act of piracy, and the hon. Member for Rhondda asked why the Government privatise only profitable companies, not loss-makers. It would be extremely difficult to go to the market with something that has made a loss and to ask somebody to buy it. People might ask for some money to take it away. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) rightly said that if the price is low enough there will always be a buyer. But if one has the chance, it is far better to move a company into profit so that a better price can be obtained.
The hon. Member for Rhondda also said that the Government want to proceed with the Bill only because they want to line the pockets of their friends. No doubt, he is an avid reader of newspapers. He will have read in several newspapers today that National Freight Corporation workers who bought shares in their own business now find that their shares are worth 22 times more than when they bought them. If any people are lining their pockets, it is those who work in the businesses and industries, and that is how it should be.
I hope that British Gas workers, like British Telecom workers, will buy their full quota of shares when the issue comes on to the market, because that will do them nothing but good. If they make a gain, as I believe they will, I am sure that all Conservative Members—I cannot speak for the Opposition—will be happy.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a short time ago the Prime Minister advised me not to believe everything I read in newspapers?

Mr. Marlow: I think that we can take that intervention as it comes and pass on without bothering to refer to it.
Privatisation is one of the Government's great themes. It has been one of the great successes of this Parliament. We have had success with British Telecom. We are sbout to have success with British Gas. It is clear that the industries in the nationalised sector which have been privatised and given to the people have produced better results for the consumer, the taxpayer and, above all, for the people who work in them. I hope that, if we get this measure under way quickly and effectively, the lessons we have learnt from the nationalised industries will be applicable to the nationalised services, whether it be housing, schools or hospitals. That is why I wish this measure godspeed.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am not sure that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has raised the tone of our proceedings, but he has been wrong in two respects about British Telecom. He said that

the workers welcomed privatisation; but there have been redundancies in Dundee, where there is more than 17 per cent. unemployment, and British Telecom has not shown the slightest consideration. I am not sure whether that was caring capitalism. Domestic charges for telephone calls are some of the highest in Europe. I suspect that, in years to come, the constituents of the hon. Member for Northampton, North and many others will regret having to pay an excessive amount for gas compared with current charges.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): As a matter of interest, will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether his party is in favour of renationalising British Telecom?

Mr. Wilson: We would certainly be in favour of British Telecom being in the public sector. It is daft to have a telecommunications system in the private sector. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that he would cause me embarrassment on that score, let me disabuse him. The main problem in taking British Telecom back into public ownership is, in a sense, financing it. I have no doubt that BT's domestic consumers would be better looked after than they are by the privatised company.
I have nothing against timetable motions per se. I suspect that hon. Members would say that they warmly favour the use of a timetable motion. When hon. Members move from Opposition to Government, they usually cast aside their arguments and deploy timetable motions. The timetable motion is good in principle, but because of the inertia that governs this place, we do not have adequate timetabling arrangements. We shall have to wait for the report by the Select Committee on Procedure.
The time taken to debate this legislation has not been excessive. This important measure should be given greater consideration. I do not think, even though I have suffered with other Committee members, that the consideration should be shortened by so much. Questions should be asked about the Standing Committee system rather than about timetabling. It is ludicrous that we can spend up to 150 hours in Standing Committee when more than half of the Committee's members, because of the Government's inbuilt majority, are constrained to be silent and not allowed to participate, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo).

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman's statement is not correct. I am not the honourable exception. A fairly large number of Conservative Members have contributed to the debate.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman should read the Committee's proceedings. The scales are not tipped too heavily by the contributions of Conservative Back Benchers. The hon. Gentleman might wish to say that the quality of the contributions has been high, but that would suggest that he was moving from his usual standards of humility, and I am sure that he would not wish to do that.
Conservative Members have contributed to the Committee's debates. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate was probably at his most efficient in that he tabled amendments and spoke to them. However, when it came to the vote, he back-tracked as fast as he could. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and I spoke in favour of an amendment that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate had tabled and commended to us,


but, when the hon. Gentleman sought leave of the Committee to withdraw it, we had to force it to the vote. We had the strange circumstance of the Labour Opposition, with members of the Liberal and Scottish National parties, voting in favour of competition and the Government voting against. At least the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate had the decency to abstain from the vote on his amendment.
If we are to change our timetabling procedures, we should look at Standing Committees. This morning, I glanced at a copy of the "Commonwealth Parliamentarian", a rather weighty magazine, which said that the Canadian Government are taking steps to relax the Whips' powers—no doubt that sent a shudder through the Government and Opposition—and that Government Members would be expected to increase their participation in debates. Because of the origins of the Canadian Parliament, Canadian procedures are akin to ours.
We have not had sufficient time to consider the Gas Bill. I shall vote against the guillotine motion. It is a matter of mobilising the big battalions. The Government have the right to shorten the debate, but the Bill is bad because it will lead to higher gas prices. It will be deeply damaging because it takes powers from the regional areas and gives them to London. We have not tackled the significant energy issues relating to gas supplies in the 1990s. The issues have not been resolved to my satisfaction. We have not dealt with import-export problems. I suspect that a statement will be made on that subject as soon as the Gas Bill is on its way to the other place.

Mr. Peter Pike: The privatisation of British Gas is an important issue to the people. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said —he has now left the Chamber—that privatisation has been a success, but he failed to say for whom it has been a success. It certainly has not been a success for the nation as a whole. The hon. Gentleman failed also to say what will happen to the Government once they have no more assets to privatise and are faced with loss of income in each successive year.
Privatisation of British Gas, once the legislation is forced through, will mean that the nation will probably get only about half the corporation's value in real terms as income —£6 billion or £7 billion, which is only half what it is worth. The nation will lose also more than £1 billion year after year in profits which could have been used to its benefit.
The Opposition have tried to move constructive amendments in Committee. We have not attempted to delay proceedings. On many occasions, Ministers have to some extent agreed with our comments. I have asked them why, if they believe that British Gas is so successful, they need to privatise it. They have said that they need to remove the shackles of public ownership from British Gas. I have repeated, and I am sure my hon. Friends agree, that if they had proposed a Bill which removed shackles and gave the sort of freedom that should bear on that public asset I would be prepared to support it.
We have sought at all stages to move amendments that would protect this important national energy supply. It is an issue that we could debate for many hours and it is right that there should be sufficient time to debate it in Committee. We believe that the Government are failing to

recognise the importance of gas for our essential overall energy requirements and the need to have a national energy policy. Gas should be publicly owned.
We have tried to protect the consumer. Time after time the Government have said that they wish to seek the protection of the consumer, but they have failed to accept a single amendment which would write such protection into the Bill. If they really believe that consumers are entitled to that protection they should be prepared to move in that direction. Of course, they are issues which we have to debate again, but the Government are now to curtail the time that is available. I believe that the protection of the consumer is an important aspect and that the Government should be moving in that direction. They are prepared to believe that market considerations will make privately owned British Gas take the consumer into account, but I would prefer to see them protected by legislation if the industry has to go into the private sector.
Another important aspect we have tried to protect is the interests of the staff and employees of British Gas. The Government express sympathy for them, but they are not prepared to accept a single amendment that would protect the rights of the employees in the industry. We recognise that the consultation procedure in British Gas at present is excellent and we have tried to move amendments that will build on that basis and improve employee participation in the industry. Surely, if they believe that employees should have shares at a discount and preference price—which I would not disagree with if the industry has to be privatised —why do they not also enable an employee of British Gas to be on the board of directors? It has to be said that the percentage of shares that will be owned by employees, even if every single employee bought a share, would be a small proportion.
We have also tried to move amendments for important protection for safety and again they keep referring to the Health and Safety Executive. I accept that it will be covered by the Health and Safety Executive, but once this vital and important industry is in the private sector we would like to see it have several of those important issues protected by legislation.
In Committee I referred briefly to the closure of showrooms. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) also referred to it. I said that I feared that privatisation would lead to closure and we moved an amendment to protect them. I have since received a letter dated 11 February 1986, to which I referred in the last Committee sitting, from Mr. B. Thompson, regional secretary of British Gas North Western which informs me that the Padiham showroom in my constituency is to be closed on 18 July 1986. We will obviously debate the issue further in Committee, but I believe that that showroom is being closed in preparation for privatisation. When privatisation takes place profit will be more important that service and the national interest will also be of second rate importance. We believe that the amendments we have debated in Committee have been constructive in the interests of the nation and the consumers.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: As hon. Members will know, with great reluctance I left the Committee considering the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill to devote more time to the Gas Bill, because I believed that it was in the interests of my constituents to spend as much time as possible debating the privatisation of this important


industry. Had I, or my constituents, realised that the debate would be curtailed, I would have reconsidered my decision, and perhaps the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill would have had the benefit of some Labour Members on the Committee. However, it is no use crying over spilt milk.
I merely want to reinforce what my hon. Friends have said during the debate. It is disgraceful that such an important debate should be curtailed in this way, particularly as there are many aspects which we have had to skim over because of the constraints of time during the past few weeks. It is appalling that such an important issue should be curtailed in this way.
Had I realised that Conservative Members were suffering from a lack of stamina, I might have had more sympathy for their point of view. It was evident during the only all-night session that they were flagging. They had to organise teams to go backwards and forwards for rest, and some hon. Members were observed sleeping in sleeping bags in the Corridor. It was obvious that they were not up to the task that they had set themselves. It is with considerable sympathy that I accept that argument.
The Minister of State was not able to go to Norway for an important meeting of Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries Ministers because of that all-night session, and again I sympathise with him on that. I am not encouraging all-night sessions, but there must be an opportunity to discuss issues of great importance when we are disposing of a national asset in this way. We should have proper debates on such issues, and I think that the Opposition have made that clear.
My hon. Friends have mentioned safety. I do not believe that we have had adequate answers from the Government on this issue. I accept that as the Bill runs its course, and as we move to other clauses, we will have some opportunity to discuss the matter, but there has been inadequate discussion of the earlier clauses dealing with health and safety.
My colleagues and I have expressed our anxiety about the additional strains that will be placed on the Health and Safety Executive after privatisation. Since 1979 its staff has decreased by 13 per cent., and that of the inspectorate by 15 per cent. As a result, visits to factories by the health and safety inspectors are down by almost 15 per cent.
The Government have said in Committee that the Health and Safety Executive has an important role to play in the future of the privatised gas industry. The Minister of State said that we were right to emphasise safety, but in answer to me he said:
she cannot be allowed to get away with broad allegations about the resources of the Health and Safety Executive. Such scare stories are not true".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 11 February 1986; c. 704.]
I believe that if we had more time to go into the rights and wrongs of the arrangements being made for health and safety it would be shown quite clearly that the protection that is being offered will not be sufficient.
I shall just touch on the existing regulations—the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1972, and the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1984. Until 1985 gas safety standards were the responsibility of the Department of Energy, which employed eight inspectors in its gas standards branch. Those eight inspectors were transferred to the Health and Safety

Executive in 1985, immediately prior to the Health and Safety Executive assuming responsibility for the enforcement of both sets of regulations. Because of the lack of resources, the Chief Inspector of Factories has issued instructions to factory inspectors to enforce the gas safety regulations on a purely reactive basis rather than on a pre-emptive basis.
The effect of the inspector shortages can be seen from a comparison of the prosecution figures. This is tremendously important, because people are concerned about safety. Department of Energy prosecutions were 30 in 1981, 33 in 1982 and 23 in 1983. In 1984 there were only two prosecutions by the Health and Safety Executive. The Chief Inspector of Factories has issued guidance to the factory inspectors about prosecution policy on gas safety. Although not explicitly urging a low profile on prosecutions, the chief inspector's instructions have to be maintained to minimise the potentially heavy burden on the Health and Safety Executive's resources.
We briefly touched on this matter in our initial debates. Part of the difficulty faced by the Health and Safety Executive in mounting effective enforcement practices lies in the difficulty of discovering evidence. When the Department of Energy has responsibility, there were close working relationships with the gas board, and the Department of Employment relied heavily on British Gas's detailed, factual, expert evidence. Since the new Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985, British Gas's reports on incidents and dangerous occurrences have not identified the installer. All this has led to increasing the Health and Safety Executive's difficulties in mounting prosecutions.
Because of the additional burdens being put on the Health and Safety Executive by the Bill, we should remember that there are only 520 factory inspectors operating in the field. That is only a couple of dozen more inspectors than in 1974, before the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act added 8 million extra workers and hundreds of thousands of extra premises to the scope of protective legislation. The factory inspectorate is now 35 per cent. below the recommended staffing levels accepted by the Government in 1979.
As the Bill advocates a system of authorisation involving the Health and Safety Executive, it is relevant to note that when the licensing of asbestos contractors was introduced by the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations, lack of resources meant that the executive was unable to vet any applicant. Licences under the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations are issued without any checks on the contractor by the Health and Safety Executive. It does not have the staff to administer a different licensing system.
That is one of the important reasons why the Government should not be allowed to apply this limitation on discussions that involve such important aspects for the public as safety in the gas industry.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I declare a dual interest in that I am a member of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, which organises the employees of British Gas, and I also worked for 30 years in the private and publicly owned British gas industry before I entered the House. Therefore, I am seriously concerned that this important Bill will not have the discussion that I feel it merits.


I know that the Secretary of State will say, "But the Bill has already had 87 hours in Committee and we normally bring forward a guillotine motion after about 80 hours." This is an extremely important Bill. In fact, I go so far as to say that I doubt very much whether there has ever been a more important Bill before the House of Commons than this Bill. For that reason, if for no other, it needed far more than 87 hours in Committee before the guillotine was brought in.
I am shocked that, after 87 hours, tomorrow morning the Committee will already be discussing clause 14. That is one quarter of the way through the Bill. The major part of the Bill would be dealt with well if it were left in Committee for another 30 or 40 hours. That would not be an unreasonable thing for the Government to do. I am inclined to say: once a Chief Whip, always a Chief Whip. The former Labour Chief Whip took charge of the Bill last week when my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), the Committee Whip, was away on unavoidable duties outside the House. I understand that when my right hon. Friend the former Chief Whip was there, more progress was made in one sitting than in 10 or more when my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh was there. Former Chief Whips cannot help themselves.
To be more serious, I am concerned about the important parts of the Bill that will be unamended. We received blank assurances from the Government that everything will be lovely, and that the private shareholders will look after the industry, together with this guy, the Director General of Gas Supply. I ask the Treasury Bench: how will the shareholders look after the public interest? The only interest that the private shareholder will have in the industry, once it is privatised, will be in private profit. We cannot be as optimistic as the Secretary of State and his colleagues.
There is nothing specific in the Bill on health and safety, although there are many general assertions. The Government seem to resist attempts to tighten health and safety in the general sense. The latter parts of the Bill dealing specifically with safety will come under the guillotine, so that the rights of the workers in the industry —present and future —will be ignored in so far as they will not be debated. There will not be time to do so under the guillotine motion.
There is nothing specific about the rights of the consumer, although I understand that a cosmetic change has been introduced by an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). The latter parts of the Bill deal with the consumer and, again, that matter will not be discussed because of the guillotine.
All the financial aspects of the Bill are in part II, and, again, debate on them will be chopped. Why? What have the Government got to hide? Is it right that a £16 billion asset—an asset in which every household has an £800 stake—should be bartered away in some hurried whispers? Not only is the gas industry affected. Tens of thousands of other jobs in the support industries will be affected. I could not hazard a guess at how many countless thousands of jobs will he affected by the measure. There is nothing in the Bill about the future of people not directly employed by the gas industry.
The Government are crawling around dismantling British industry and they want to gag those who are alerting the public to the Government's activities. The

British Gas Corporation is guilty of that, because it has told its workers—and this is scandalous—to say nothing that would be detrimental to privatisation.
For years I have praised. Sir Denis Rooke, the chairman of British Gas, as being probably the best chairman of a nationalised industry since nationalisation measures went on to the statute book. I am sorry now to have to say that the chairman of British Gas, since the proposition has come forward, has behaved rather like a neutered tom. I wonder why he has behaved like that. As I have said, it is intolerable that the gag should have been applied to British Gas employees. One wonders how such an outspoken man as Sir Denis Rooke could have suddenly become the proverbial neutered torn. He has lost his tongue—[Interruption.] I will not go into the details about the neutered chairman of a nationalised industry as against a neutered tom cat.
I am outraged about this matter. I wonder why there is such a rush to get the Bill on to the statute book. There can be only one answer: that the Government want to make tax cuts to fulfil one of their election pledges to make the rich richer, and to go forward in the hope that they will survive the next election.

Mr. Stanley Orme: We have had an important and interesting debate, not the least important part of which was the contribution of the Leader of the House, which was exceedingly short. We know the reason for that. After 87 hours of debate in Committee, the Opposition believe that the Bill will be a disaster for the 16 million consumers, the workers within the industry and the future energy needs of the United Kingdom.
Many of the vital questions which the Opposition have raised during the passage of the Bill remain to be answered. The Government are racing through the Bill with extraordinary pace when one considers that it is one of the major pieces of legislation for this Parliament to deal with.
The Bill paves the way for the largest transfer of national assets and the transfer of enormous powers to a huge private monopoly. However, it is nothing more than an enabling Bill. The majority of the issues and decisions arising from such transfers of assets and powers are left out of the Bill. The proposals for maintaining and improving industrial relations within the industry, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown) referred, and which the Opposition put forward, have been rejected in the Standing Committee.
We are also disturbed by the statements emanating from British Gas regarding the restrictions placed upon employees. I have a copy of the privatisation report of British Gas. It is extraordinary that even before the Bill has become an Act of Parliament, a publicly owned industry has put out privatisation reports advising employees that there are legal restrictions on what they can and cannot do. That is extraordinary when one considers the gag that the Government have put on municipal authorities. The privatisation report is the reverse of that point. I must tell Government and Sir Denis Rooke that that is not the way in which to ensure good industrial relations.
There is increasing disquiet among consumer and welfare organisations that all attempts that the Opposition have made to improve the legislation on their behalf have been resisted by the Government. In fact, any attempts to


write into the Bill justifiable safeguards for consumers, particularly the poor, the sick, disabled and elderly, have been rejected by the Government.
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) referred to the amendment accepted from my hon. Friend, the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), about the change of name from user council to consumer council. That is the sole concession that the Government have made during 87 hours of debate. Not one concession other than that has been given or any attention paid to the Opposition's attempts to improve the Bill. I hope that the country will note the Government's attitude in that regard.
I would like to raise the question of safety with the Secretary of State, as we have debated this issue on a number of occasions in Committee. The Opposition have debated the issue in a responsible manner, because we are concerned about maintaining safety levels. I want to draw the Secretary of State's attention to a daily press summary released by British Gas on 11 February. It states:
The Government is preparing a white paper on relaxing health and safety laws in industry, according to The Guardian. Lord Young, the Employment Secretary, said yesterday that the paper would identify difficulties caused to employers by the 'law on health and safety.'
Can the Secretary of State say whether these considerations affect British Gas? Will there be any alterations in the standards that presently apply? We are entitled to know of any changes as the Bill goes through the House. That statement rather refutes the undertakings that the Minister of State has quite fairly given to the Standing Committee to reflect his concern about safety. Is that a contradiction in Government thinking and policy?
I want to refer now to crucial information that has still not been given to the Standing Committee. What will be the effects of imports and exports of gas on British Gas plc and the overall British energy policy? We are within three weeks of concluding consideration of the Committee stage of the Bill. It is outrageous that we have not been told the Government's policy in regard to imports and exports. That matter concerns both sides of the Committee, and it was raised by the hon. Member for Southgate. The Secretary of State ought to bring us up to date and give us some information on that this evening.
We have still not received information about the gas levy and the extent of future Government intervention. Nor have we been told about the part that the golden share will play in the operation of British Gas plc and its control over foreign investment. A Department of Energy press release of 14 January 1986, which deals with the appointment of overseas financial advisers on the privatisation of British Gas, states that such advisers will operate on behalf of British Gas in the United States, Canada, Japan and Europe. We know what happened with British Telecom. When its shares were floated, a killing of about £200 million was made in one day on the stock exchange. What control will be provided by the golden share? How will it protect British interests? How will it protect possible strategic and military interests? We are entitled to know those facts, and we believe that that information should be given to the Committee at the earliest opportunity.
Since the Bill is nothing more than an enabling Bill, our debates in Committee are the only opportunity for hon. Members to discuss the conditions attached to the 25-year monopoly licence to be granted to British Gas plc. I draw

the attention of the Leader of the House specifically to this matter. The Government's draft licence was hastily published on the eve of our Second Reading debate. The Committee stage has been the first and only real opportunity to debate the licence. Indeed, in clause 7(13), the Government abolish any right to formal representation or the receiving of objections to the draft licence. Therefore, we have had to use our debates on clauses 4 and 7 to expose the pathetic protection given to consumers on standing and collection charges, the abolition of legislative safeguards for staff in the industry, the absence of defined levels of service by a privatised BGC and major issues of safety. We make no apologies for the time that we have spent debating clause 7.It was our only real opportunity to debate the licence, which, as the Leader of the House knows, is outside the Bill. Clause 7(13) restricts the rights of private citizens to intervene with regard to the licence.
The Government wish to curtail our debates on important issues such as the golden share and limitations on foreign ownership. I should have thought that the Leader of the House would be especially sensitive to those issues after Westland and British Leyland. I make a personal plea to him to ensure that, before the guillotine falls on the second part of the Bill, the Department of Energy produces a draft of the articles of association.
Our debates have had two purposes: to discuss the major issues that are not contained in the enabling Bill; and, secondly, to fulfil the traditional role of the Opposition of trying to improve a bad Bill. The Bill gives little or no protection to the consumer, abolishes all forms of regional consumer councils, undermines the rights and interests of 93,000 employees in the industry, creates a pathetic Director General of Ofgas—a pale imitation of Oftel —and above all does nothing more than pave the way for the sale, at knockdown prices, of vital national assets.
The parallel with British Telecom is plain for all to see. The conversion of a public monopoly into a private monopoly solely for the Government to use the money to give tax handouts at an appropriate time is the real purpose of the Bill, and that is why we oppose it.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I cannot claim to be a connoisseur of guillotine debates, since this is only the second such debate that I have attended since I have been privileged to be a Member of the House. My views on guillotines are consistent: when in government I favour them and when in opposition I am against them. Several hon. Members share that view. However, the Liberal party has always remained solid, reliable and consistent about guillotine motions. Liberal Members, not having been in government for years, always oppose guillotine motions.
The other guillotine debate in which I participated was on the Transport Bill in 1968. I am delighted to see the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) in his place, because I recall that in that debate he passionately argued his theoretical opposition to guillotine motions, but said that he would support it in that case. He put the position of the Liberal party more correctly and vividly than most, with the family interest that he has always had in both parties, when he said:
It is easier for Liberals to speak on guillotine Motions than on some others. I say that as one who comes from a Liberal family. The Liberals have not had the duty or the opportunity of exercising


powers of government for quite a long time now, and perhaps they find it easier than some others to be consistent on guillotine Motions. I would remind him, however, that it was the Liberal party which introduced the idea of guillotine Motions in the first place, and it was the party which introduced the most severe restrictions on the freedom of speech that this House has ever introduced. At the time of the operations of the Irish Parliamentary Party, the Liberals introduced the closure and many of the devices which we now find convenient. They did that when they exercised the powers of Government."—[Official Report, 14 March 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1701-2.]
I understand the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is continuing that tradition. He also continues other traditions of the Liberal party on such measures. His speech, like his speeches in Committee, was based on the fact that he favours something else, but he never defined what the something else was. That has been a convenience for the Liberal party for a long time. Also in the best traditions of the Liberal party, he has one view about what should happen in the gas industry, and the Social Democratic party has another view.
A short time ago the leader of the SDP—presumably briefed by the great Liberal Social Democrat, Mr. Sam Brittan—said that the SDP favoured giving British Gas shares to everyone, that everyone should have an equal share and that there should be X million shareholders. When cross-examined on what that meant, we discovered that shareholders would not have votes, because that might be dangerous, and that they could not express their views on some issues, because that, too, might be dangerous. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman believed that British Gas should be privatised in that way. We have heard no such proposals from the Liberal party. It believes that British Gas should be broken up, but it does not say into how many pieces and it does not say which pieces would be allowed to do what. It has not examined in any depth what that breaking up would do to the British Gas Corporation. It is just another nice, vague, flimsy idea. We admire the Liberal party for its consistently vague ideas about what should be done and also for being against all forms of guillotine.
The right hon. Member for Salford East (Mr. Orme) criticised my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for making rather a short speech. I never criticise Members for that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down".] I am quite happy to do that.
The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), commented on how remarkably short my right hon. Friend's speech was. We therefore sat back, relaxing, expecting to hear a lengthy and devastating analysis of the Bill from the right hon. Gentleman. But what do we find? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House spoke for eight minutes and the shadow Leader of the House for nine minutes. The right hon. Gentleman's speech, therefore, gave us a greater appreciation of the Bill. We also appreciated his great depth of analysis. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be chastised, and that in future he will speak for nine minutes instead of the dilatory eight minutes.
The function of the shadow Leader of the House is to attend this type of debate. The right hon. Gentleman had the appropriate brief. I do not know whether he takes briefs fom Transport House—half the Labour party does and half does not. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was good party line stuff—all the clichés, platitudes, fears and hostilities about gas privatisation were summarised in

his speech. In fairness, the right hon. Gentleman did not argue enthusiastically that this was an unreasonable guillotine motion.
My one experience of the guillotine motion was when I led for the Opposition against the Transport Bill in 1968. It was not a major Bill. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown) suggested that the Gas Bill would be the most important Bill in his lifetime. He suggested that the Committee had done well to get through 13 clauses so quickly. The hon. Gentleman said it was outrageous, when everything was going so speedily, that the Government should be vicious and wicked enough to introduce a guillotine motion.
If the hon. Gentleman feels like that, imagine how I felt in 1968. After 91 hours we had got through not 13 clauses, but 37 clauses, six schedules and 488 amendments. Despite such vigorous progress, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was one of those who supported the imposition of the guillotine. What is more, the right hon. Gentleman criticised me, as Opposition spokesman, because I had obviously not done my job properly by allowing so much to get through so quickly. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North used the speedy progress that has been made on the Gas Bill as a basis for his argument. That is pretty nasty criticism of his right hon. Friends. In fairness to them, I hasten to add that the criticism is in no way justified.
The Opposition Front Bench spokesmen in Committee have shown diligence and great application. It is difficult to praise them because it will obviously do them great damage in future shadow Cabinet elections, and I have no desire to do that. I am aware, as one who opposed legislation in opposition, that facilites are somewhat limited, and the civil servants are not operating behind one. I admire the right hon. Member for Salford, East and the hon. Member for Methyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) for the many hours they have spent in preparation for the Committee and for the many hours they have spent listening to the opponents of the Bill. Their difficulty has been the degree of repetition, because they have had to listen to the same voices repeating such opposition. Nevertheless, they have spent a great deal of time on the first 13 clauses.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who has played such an active part in Committee on the subject of safety, said how much we had skimped on a number of issues in Committee. The hon. Lady made two speeches of an hour each on one clause. If that is what she calls skimping, heaven knows what she is like when she decides to apply her mind further to such problems. The hon. Lady by "skimping'. on these matters gave us a. great deal of pleasure in the hours when she spoke. I shall not repeat one or two suggestions made by the Chairman of our Committee —that some of the matters the hon. Lady talked about were not quite in the context of the amendments we were discussing. However, the hon. Lady has rightly taken an interest in safety.
I defend the guillotine motion. This legislation was assiduously prepared, long before it came to the House. One of the interesting factors about legislation, from whichever party in government it might come, is that there are times when Governments, for perfectly reasonable and valid political reasons, decide speedily to bring forward a piece of legislation. If a Government do that, there tends to be a whole range of problems about drafting, the parliamentary counsel, and so on. Thus, a large number


of Government as well as Opposition amendments have to be moved. The right hon. Member for Salford, East knows that this has been limited. Very few Government amendments have had to be moved due to incompetent drafting or failure to deal with the points concerned.
Before the Government decided to privatise the gas industry they carefully examined the way in which this legislation would deal with all aspects of the industry. We looked at the problems of safety in great depth. Obviously it would be totally detrimental to the interests of British Gas if there were any doubts about its safety policies. If they were put in doubt, it would be a matter of great joy to competitors.
I have a slight suspicion—perhaps based on the fact that I have been a Member of this House for 25 years—that the Opposition might endeavour to convey to the public that the safety of gas services would be put in jeopardy. Anybody who examines the Committee stage of the Bill in depth will find that no valid argument had been made at any time about the deterioration of safety standards. My hon. Friends have been able to argue with complete satisfaction that we have improved the safety provisions of British Gas. British Gas is in favour of these provisions. The future arrangements for the safety provision of British Gas will be better than they are now.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley said that safety was at one time the responsibility of the Department of Energy. One could argue that there was a joint interest in safety. I think the move to the Health and Safety Executive was an improvement. The safety provisions were handled independently by people interested only in safety. There was no connection with commercial success or failure or the financial cost to British Gas. I rejoiced when the safety responsibility was moved to the Health and Safety Executive. It has recently announced that it intends to devote 60 per cent. of the inspectors' time to checking the safety requirements of British Gas. That is more than was previously done when the responsibility was that of the Department of Energy. Therefore, in terms of inspectors and the provision of safety there is an improvement. We welcomed the opportunity to point that out in Committee, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am extremely gratified by the glowing tribute to the Health and Safety Executive, which I set up. What does the right hon. Gentleman say here or in the Cabinet about the cut in the inspectorate and the number of people who will be doing the job? Will he go back to the Cabinet and say that we need more money for more inspectors?

Mr. Walker: The Health and Safety Executive has recently announced that its inspectors will be able to devote 60 per cent. more time to the safety aspects of the gas industry than previously. It is a substantial improvement in which I rejoice.
Another aspect concerns consumer interests. When preparing the Bill, we were determined to see that the consumer was protected.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is building up a major cause over the closure of a showroon in his constituency. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) said that he would be guillotined in two places —by us here and by the management committee of his local Labour party. We take pleasure in the guillotine here,

but regret the other one. He implied that the closures were all part of the preparation for privatisation, and directed against the hon. Member for Burnley because of his views.
There were showroom closures long before there was any talk of privatisation. Since 1983, the BGC has closed 50 showrooms a year in the normal course of its business. That has nothing to do with privatisation. If the hon. Gentleman argues that a showroom closure is to help privatisation, what will he say about the new showrooms that have been opened recently? Is the corporation pursuing an opposite policy? British Gas has reviewed its showrooms for some years. Where they have been unnecessary or have not given the service people require or the costs have outweighed the benefit, the BGC has moved and closed showrooms. No new policy has been pursued. By keeping the BGC in one piece, it will be able to decide on the service to its customers and to the public which best suits the industry's reputation and effectiveness.

Mr. Pike: I am not speaking about a particular showroom. If what the Secretary of State has said is correct, why did the Government not table an amendment in Committee that would guarantee a network of showrooms throughout the country?

Mr. Walker: It would have been absurd to table such an amendment. It would be absurd for a load of politicians to sit here and say what showrooms the BGC should have. Instead, the BGC may decide on a whole range of things, including those which may improve its connections with its customers.
The hon. Gentleman fails to realise, as does the Labour party, that one of the great advantages of giving British Gas freedom from political intervention is that, if it decides that it is in its interests substantially to increase the number of showrooms, it can do so. If it decides to go into partnership with private enterprise in showrooms, it can do so. It will decide the best policy to pursue to obtain happier and more contented customers supporting the industry.

Mr. Rogers: Is the Secretary of State saying that he oppressively controls the number of showrooms that the BGC has?

Mr. Walker: Over the years, chaps sitting in the Department of Energy—some representing the Labour party and some the Conservative party —have had all sorts of discussions about how the corporation should invest. There was the classic example of the Labour Government who were in trouble with the IMF. The IMF said, "You must find £200 million more." The Labour Government went along to the corporation and said, "Put up your gas prices, chaps, and we can meet the IMF's demands." Those people who argue that nationalised gas provides a great service for consumers have only to study the way in which a Labour Government put up gas prices against consumers' interests.
We have introduced a customer organisation in the Bill. We have studied what is required. I believe that it will be a more efficient consumer operation than anything we have seen in the past. In Committee, we have been able to defend the legislation because we know that it deals with safety and consumer needs effectively.
The Opposition are frustrated because they know that no valid argument against privatisation of the BGC has been put forward in Committee. The argument for privatisation is clear.


The importance of research and development was mentioned in Committee. It is interesting to note how often the BGC's research programmes have been clawed over by the Treasury in the past. There have been limitations on the application of some of the research. Those limitations will not exist after privatisation. The BGC has undertaken a great deal of research, but under both Labour and Tory Governments the corporation has been allowed to benefit only to a small extent from that research.

Mr. Ken Eastham: The BGC had the courage to spend money on the Wytch Farm project. Many private companies were not interested in it.

Mr. Walker: I have never said that the corporation has not had many fine and remarkable achievements. Given the freedom of its new role, and its skills and talents, the corporation will be able to continue with such projects. The Opposition are frustrated because they know that the employees have no passionate hostility to privatisation.
I have every confidence that we shall be able vigorously to defend the legislation in any future debates. I am also delighted to know that the Labour party, the Scottish National party, and the Liberal party are all against privatisation. By the time of the next election, when the employees, the consumers and the public have benefited from privatisation, I look forward to those three parties being in favour of renationalisation of the BGC.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 195.

Division No. 77]
[7.26 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bruinvels, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Bryan, Sir Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Amess, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Ancram, Michael
Budgen, Nick


Arnold, Tom
Bulmer, Esmond


Ashby, David
Burt, Alistair


Aspinwall, Jack
Butcher, John


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chapman, Sydney


Batiste, Spencer
Chope, Christopher


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Churchill, W. S.


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Benyon, William
Clegg, Sir Walter


Best, Keith
Cockeram, Eric


Bevan, David Gilroy
Colvin, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Conway, Derek


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Coombs, Simon


Blackburn, John
Cope, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cormack, Patrick


Body, Sir Richard
Corrie, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Couchman, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Critchley, Julian


Bottomley, Peter
Crouch, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dicks, Terry


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dover, Den


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dunn, Robert


Bright, Graham
Durant, Tony


Brinton, Tim
Dykes, Hugh


Brooke, Hon Peter
Emery, Sir Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Evennett, David





Eyre, Sir Reginald
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fallon, Michael
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Farr, Sir John
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Moate, Roger


Fletcher, Alexander
Monro, Sir Hector


Fookes, Miss Janet
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Forman, Nigel
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Forth, Eric
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Fox, Marcus
Moynihan, Hon C.


Fry, Peter
Mudd, David


Gale, Roger
Murphy, Christopher


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Neale, Gerrard


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Needham, Richard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nelson, Anthony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Neubert, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Nicholls, Patrick


Gorst, John
Normanton, Tom


Gower, Sir Raymond
Norris, Steven


Grant, Sir Anthony
Oppenheim, Phillip


Greenway, Harry
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Gregory, Conal
Ottaway, Richard


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Grist, Ian
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hanley, Jeremy
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hannam, John
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Pattie, Geoffrey


Harvey, Robert
Pawsey, James


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Portillo, Michael


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Powell, William (Corby)


Heddle, John
Powley, John


Henderson, Barry
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Price, Sir David


Hickmet, Richard
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hicks, Robert
Raffan, Keith


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rathbone, Tim


Hind, Kenneth
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Renton, Tim


Holt, Richard
Rhodes James, Robert


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irving, Charles
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jackson, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Key, Robert
Rost, Peter


Knox, David
Rowe, Andrew


Lamont, Norman
Ryder, Richard


Lang, Ian
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Latham, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lester, Jim
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lilley, Peter
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Silvester, Fred


Lyell, Nicholas
Sims, Roger


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maclean, David John
Speed, Keith


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Spencer, Derek


McQuarrie, Albert
Squire, Robin


Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maples, John
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Marlow, Antony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Maude, Hon Francis
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sumberg, David


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mellor, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Merchant, Piers
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter






Terlezki, Stefan
Walters, Dennis


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Ward, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Warren, Kenneth


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Watson, John


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Watts, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thurnham, Peter
Wheeler, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Whitfield, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Whitney, Raymond


Tracey, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Trippier, David
Wilkinson, John


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wolfson, Mark


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wood, Timothy


Viggers, Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Waddington, David
Yeo, Tim


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waldegrave, Hon William



Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Wall, Sir Patrick
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.


Waller, Gary





NOES


Abse, Leo
Dixon, Donald


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dobson, Frank


Alton, David
Dormand, Jack


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas, Dick


Ashdown, Paddy
Dubs, Alfred


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashton, Joe
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Eadie, Alex


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Ewing, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Faulds, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Bidwell, Sydney
Flannery, Martin


Blair, Anthony
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boyes, Roland
Forrester, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
George, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Buchan, Norman
Golding, John


Caborn, Richard
Gould, Bryan


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Gourlay, Harry


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Campbell, Ian
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hancock, Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hardy, Peter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cartwright, John
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clarke, Thomas
Haynes, Frank


Clay, Robert
Heffer, Eric S.


Clelland, David Gordon
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Howells, Geraint


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbett, Robin
Janner, Hon Greville


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Craigen, J. M.
Kennedy, Charles


Crowther, Stan
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunningham, Dr John
Lambie, David


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Leadbitter, Ted


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Leighton, Ronald





Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Litherland, Robert
Robertson, George


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rogers, Allan


Loyden, Edward
Rooker, J. W.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rowlands, Ted


McGuire, Michael
Ryman, John


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sedgemore, Brian


McKelvey, William
Sheerman, Barry


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McTaggart, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McWilliam, John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Madden, Max
Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Martin, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Maynard, Miss Joan
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Meadowcroft, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Michie, William
Straw, Jack


Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Tinn, James


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Torney, Tom


Nellist, David
Wainwright, R.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, William
Wareing, Robert


O'Neill, Martin
Weetch, Ken


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Michael


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
White, James


Park, George
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Patchett, Terry
Wilson, Gordon


Pavitt, Laurie
Winnick, David


Pendry, Tom
Woodall, Alec


Pike, Peter
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Radice, Giles



Randall, Stuart
Tellers for the Noes:


Redmond, Martin
Mr. Ray Powell and


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Mr. Ron Davies.


Richardson, Ms Jo

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee

1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 6th March 1986.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 6th March may continue until Ten o'clock, whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 7th March.

Report and Third Reading

2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 45 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatiory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government: Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Gas Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Orders of the Day — Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [Lords]:

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Mr. Speaker has not selected either of the amendments on the Order Paper.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a little surprised at what you have just said, because many Second Reading amendments have been selected recently by Mr. Speaker on behalf of the so-called Social Democratic party and Liberal party alliance. The number of SDP and Liberal alliance Members does not equal the numbers of those hon. Members who have put their names to the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). As so many Second Reading alliance amendments have been accepted recently, why has my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton's amendment not been accepted? More than 30 hon. Members have put their names to it. Is an explanation not necessary?

Mr. Henry Cohen: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall deal with each point in turn. I have announced Mr. Speaker's decision. The hon. Gentleman and the House know that Mr. Speaker never gives the reasons for his decision.

Mr. Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard your answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but Mr. Speaker is the guardian of the rights of Back Benchers. It should not be just amendments that have been put down by the Opposition Front Bench or by other political parties that are accepted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now getting very close to disputing Mr. Speaker's decision. The hon. Gentleman may wish to speak in the debate, in which case he will have a full opportunity to express his views.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House has before it a great prize if we can legislate successfully on this difficult matter, by which I mean a Bill which is not just rammed through in a partisan spirit, but which is sufficiently acceptable to endure.
In 1876 Parliament passed the first legislation of any country in the world to control the use of live animals in experiments that might cause pain. The 1876 Act was a response to some horrifying reports from abroad about the practice of surgical procedures on live animals without inducing anaesthesia.
The 1876 Act has stood the test of time well, despite the enormous scope of developments in the biomedical sciences; developments which its authors could not possibly have foreseen. The principle embodied in that Act has been sustained by a developing system of administrative controls. Therefore, Home Secretaries,

with the invaluable help of the inspectorate, have been able to go on applying the spirit of the Act, in the face of many world changes which might otherwise have overwhelmed it. Scientists and researchers have seen it as part of their role to be conscientious in conforming to the controls and to be creative in helping the inspectorate and Home Secretaries to adapt and develop the licensing system for experimental work on animals. We have nothing to be ashamed of in the story of this subject since the 1876 Act, or of the climate of responsible, humane research, in which our nation is fortunate. However, the universal view now is that we have to move on.
There are limits to the usefulness of adaptation, however well intentioned and worth while. There is general recognition that the time has come to review and alter the Act. The range and scale of work performed under the legislation have expanded enormously in the last 110 years. There have been fundamental and highly significant developments in our understanding of animals and their needs and in the public concern for animal welfare. That is why we need a new statute, one which builds upon the solid foundation of our experience, reflects today's needs and concerns and makes suitable allowance for future developments and discoveries.
Every right hon. and hon. Member knows that animal experiments arouse peculiar emotion. Every right hon. and hon. Member also knows that sometimes the subject is dealt with in crude propaganda which does not present the facts but distorts, exaggerates and invents them. But sometimes there is genuine emotion in the letters and the conversations. Therefore, we are all forced to think through our philosophy. We must set some limit upon the adverse effect on the animal, whatever the benefits achieved, but we cannot overlook the great benefits which animal experiments have brought to both humans and animals and the important work which remains to be done.
There are a few people who see no need to strike this balance. At the other end of the argument, there are a few people whose view is so absolute that they are not interested in the views of other people. However, for the overwhelming majority, I hope, of hon. Members and, I am sure, of the public, a balance needs to be struck. We have sought to strike that balance in the Bill.
Many right hon. and hon. Members will remember, or will have read of, the days when diseases such as polio, smallpox, diphtheria and tuberculosis brought death and misery to many thousands of people. It was not all that long ago that infections and sceptic wounds, which would now be treated with antibiotics, went untreated. The great reduction in suffering, and the great improvements in our health and well-being, are owed in large measure to animal experiments.
Scientists have worked hard to reduce the use of animals in their research and to find ways of avoiding and minimising pain. Much work is being done now, with our support, to develop new alternative methods, but the use of live animals unfortunately remains necessary in many areas of biological and medical research if we are to safeguard the health and well-being of the individual and the community.
Fundamental research into the workings of the body and the causes of disease is as essential as ever. Therefore, it is irresponsible to suggest, as some have, that we can bring medical and scientific progress to a halt because, it is alleged, we have enough cures and enough knowledge to cope with the diseases which afflict so many people, or to


suggest that certain types of research should not be permitted. That line of argument does not stand up to examination. A moment's thought brings to mind the great number of diseases and conditions for which a solution or improved treatment is still urgently needed. Heart disease, cancer, and AIDS are three obvious examples. The House could think of many more.
It has been suggested that all research into psychology and behaviour involving animals should be prohibited, but our understanding of the workings of the mind and of the many disorders of behaviour is still in its infancy. Skilled research in this area has already brought considerable benefits, and it is clearly vital that it should continue. Another criticism is that research involving tobacco or alcohol should be stopped, on the ground that they are supposedly self-induced ills. I do not think that that argument stands up, either, in serious debate.
The mechanisms by which substances such as alcohol and tobacco act, and the processes of dependence to which they lead, are still not fully understood. Their effects are not limited to the individual user who brings things on himself, as any hapless victim of a drunken driver can attest. Research into disease and illness has to continue. Safety testing is also vital, and here, too, although alternative methods have developed quite rapidly, we still have to make use of animal experiments.
Where beneficial drugs and vaccines have been developed they must be tested to ensure their safety, and we must ensure that each of the enormous number of other products and substances which people may use or come into contact with do not present a hazard to health. It is difficult to imagine us picking and choosing here. For example, it is sometimes said that the safety testing of some substances, such as cosmetics, should not be allowed if it involves the use of animals. We may hear that argument this evening and hereafter. Most tests of cosmetic substances are now carried out without the use of animals, but sometimes such tests are still needed. Cosmetics include soap, toothpaste, shampoo and many other substances which are used every day. These experiments amount to 0·5 per cent. of animal experiments in this country, but we are dealing with substances which have to be safe.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State saying that he cannot differentiate between experiments on animals in connection with, say, finding the cause of cancer, and those for alcohol and nicotine-related diseases? To put it another way, he could simply ban the sale of alcohol and tobacco and therefore eradicate the diseases. He could not ban cancer, so there must be a difference, and he cannot keep them together.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been following my argument. I was not making the same argument in both cases. I said that there was still a good deal of ignorance about the effects of tobacco and alcohol and the dependence that they induce, and that since that dependence and those effects can affect for the worse many people who may not be directly using alcohol and tobacco, it must be right that research into these things should continue. Occasionally that involves the use of animals, and that was the case that I was making.
I had moved to the safety issue and the vexed question of cosmetics. I understand that there is an amendment in the names of several hon. Members on this point, and I

appreciate the anxiety that exists about two safety tests, the Draize test on eye irritancy, and the LD50 toxicity test. A great deal of work has been done to minimise the use of these tests and replace them with less severe procedures. I understand that in most cases where the Draize test is used it stops short of the end points laid down in international regulations. We shall soon issue guidelines on the use of this test, designed to maximise the use of less severe procedures for eye testing, and the LD50 test has increasingly been replaced by limit tests. We shall continue to encourage these developments, but while there remains some circumstances in which the more severe tests are necessary to ensure the proper degree of safety such testing must continue, though subject to rigorous control.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to monitor closely the LD50 tests, and we have been assured that they will be monitored closely, it is necessary to know how many such tests there are each year?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to deal positively with the general desire for more accurate statistics about the total and nature of future tests. We have a clear duty to allow the continuation of scientific research using animals. Against that is the other principle that I have mentioned, the duty to prevent unnecessary suffering, and the unnecessary use of animals in scientific procedures. The meeting of both those obligations underlies the Bill.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I say that the LD50 test raises an enormous amount of emotion and heat? Quite clearly, there is in the mind of the public some kind of problem relating LD50 to toxicity tests. Before any drug or medicament is loosed upon the public, it is essential for its toxicity to be tested. That testing involves animals, but not necessarily in the way that LD50 previously worked. The people who are doing the testing know that, and LD50 will eventually be phased out.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is right. We have to encourage all the bodies concerned, including the international regulatory bodies, to go on looking closely at the need for LD50 tests. We must also ensure through the system of project licensing in the Bill that alternative methods — and all the time we are moving towards alternative methods—are used wherever possible. The spirit of the Bill is exactly the spirit of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Mr. Robin Corbett: am unwilling to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he will know that the draft Home Office guidance on the operation of the Bill was lodged in the Vote Office today. Can he tell us the status of this guidance, and is he able to give us an assurance that this guidance will be debatable in Committee on the Bill?

Mr. Hurd: It is for the Chairman of a Standing Committee to decide on the scope of discussions. I should be surprised if it was not possible, with the co-operation of my hon. Friend, to ensure that the main points which appear in the guidance also find a place in the discussions of the Standing Committee. With a bit of will on all sides, that will not be too difficult.


I should like to make progress on the contents of the Bill, because there will be plenty of scope for hon. Members to speak. Its origins go back to a lot of patient work by the Littlewood committee, which reported in 1965, and by the Select Committee in another place, which reported in 1980 on Lord Halsbury's Bill. In 1981 the Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments submitted its proposals for a framework of new legislation. Our proposals owe much to all this work and, of course, were foreshadowed in the two White Papers published by this Government.
The Council of Europe has produced a convention, which will shortly be open for signature, and we played a leading part in drafting that. The convention sets a common minimum standard for controls on animal experiments, and our controls under the Bill will be tighter still. A few months before the first White Paper was published the British Veterinary Association, the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation, and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments put forward their own proposals. Their thinking was along similar lines to our own, and since then we have consulted closely with their representatives. There has been invaluable advice and support from science and industry. I must mention the great contribution of Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who has earned the title of the elder statesman of animal welfare because of his tireless campaigning for reform. He has been prolific in his advice and admonition. We in the Government and all who are concerned for animals owe him a great debt.
I should like to say a word in commendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who is sitting beside me. For a long time he has worked tirelessly to bring together a coalition, an understanding, between people who may have started with different points of view but who have worked together to make the Bill possible and successful. Hon. Members know that my hon. Friend has done that at some personal cost, but it is a remarkable achievement, which I hope will be continued during the passage of the Bill.
The Bill is a response to growing pressure from all sides for reform. It is the result of the consensus that I have been talking about, and that consensus, that wide-ranging support, was reflected in the debates in another place, where a number of significant improvements were made in response to helpful suggestions for change, without the need for one Division. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is to steer the Opposition during the Committee stage of the Bill, if it gets a Second Reading, I strongly commend to him the example set in another place.
The Bill contains many more detailed provisions than the Act that it replaces, but it is, to a large extent, an enabling measure. It bans hardly anything, but it controls everything.

Sir Bernard Braine: Banning hardly anything is what is wrong with it.

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend will be able to develop that point, and I am sure that he will do so with some regard for the balance of which I have been speaking.
The details of the control are left to the Secretary of State, and I am sure that that fact will attract some

attention and even criticism. However, that provision is important, because there must be administrative flexibility to deal with widely varying individual circumstances and to reflect the changes in science and in our understanding of animals and their needs, which lie ahead. That is the basic character of the Bill.
The detailed workings of the controls will be made public through the guidance note. The draft has been revised in the light of the many comments that we have received and of the changes made to the Bill in another place. Copies of the revised draft are available in the Vote Office.
The heart of the Bill is the new system of dual licensing. As happens now, a personal licence authorising an individual to carry out particular procedures on animals will be required, but, in addition, a project licence, specifying the detail and limits of the programme of work that is authorised, will also be required. No work may be done without the authority of both kinds of licence.
A project licence will be granted only if the proposed work appears justified. In addition, detailed conditions limiting the severity of procedures will be applied to each project. The Bill also makes new provision for arrangements for the care of laboratory animals and, for the first time, controls the breeding and supply of animals used in scientific or experimental procedures. It extends control to areas not covered by the 1876 Act, such as the use of animals for the production of antisera or the passage of tumours, and the breeding of laboratory animals with inherited defects.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Clauses 3 to 5 mention project licences and I have examined those clauses carefully. I should like to know who will advise the Home Secretary on the suitability of a project.
Some people are extremely worried about experiments on animals, but, from my experience, I believe that projects are already pretty well controlled and that few mavericks carry on the experimentation of which people accuse them. I hope that the Home Secretary will allay my fears by telling me that his advisers will not make it more difficult for genuine experiments to take place.

Mr. Hurd: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I shall be advised by the inspectorate, which can call on assessors. The advisory committee, which is dealt with in clause 19, will be in the background. I hope that when the machinery is in place and has gained experience it will be able to work quickly and practically so that the hon. Gentleman's fears, which I understand, will not arise.
I shall not go through all the details of the Bill. I have explained the principles behind it, and I shall merely emphasise one or two key features. Clause 1 states that the protection of the Bill extends to all living vertebrate animals other than man. Unlike the 1876 Act, the Bill provides that immature forms of animals are protected if they reach, or are going to reach, specified stages of development.
Clause 2 defines what is meant by a "regulated procedure". That definition is important. Clause 3 prohibits anyone from carrying out a regulated procedure on a protected animal unless it is properly authorised under both a personal and a project licence. Acting without the proper authority of both types of licence will be an offence punishable by the substantial penalties set out in clause 22.


The two types of licence are established by clauses 4 and 5. The personal licence has to ensure that only suitable and competent people are able to carry out work on live animals. It will define the limits of an individual's authority, which will be set after rigorous scrutiny of his qualifications, training and experience.
It is important to note that under the new controls all applicants for project licences will have to declare that they have considered alternatives to the use of live animals and rejected them on good grounds. Without that assurance, they will not be granted the authority that they seek.
The project licence issued under clause 5 will specify what may be done in the programme of work to which it applies, including the animals that may be used and the procedures that may be performed. The place where procedures are carried out has to be specified and so, in both the project and the personal licence, do the people doing the work. There will be detailed conditions.
Clause 10 requires certain conditions to be imposed in all cases, including, in particular, conditions limiting the degree of pain or suffering to which an animal may be exposed. All personal licences will include a condition requiring any animal that is suffering severe pain which cannot be alleviated to be killed painlessly forthwith. Within that universal upper limit, there will be further conditions limiting the severity of procedures.
Clauses 6 and 7 provide for the control of laboratories at which animals are used in experimental work and of establishments which breed or supply the kinds of animal most commonly used in procedures.

Sir Dudley Smith: I have been listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. Am I right in thinking that, in future, cats and dogs will have had to be specially bred for experimental purposes, and that the practice of taking cats and dogs from the streets—very little of that goes on at present, but it is worrying to many people—will be eliminated?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. That is implicit in what I have said, and I understand that that will be the case.
Having galloped through the clauses, I should say a word about the Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments, which is also part of the Bill. That is another source of valuable advice on existing controls and it must be right that a committee established to provide advice on this difficult, specialised subject should have a high level of medical, veterinary and scientific experience. The work of the commmittee has proved beyond doubt that such expertise and a high concern of animal welfare are often combined. We have been lucky in persuading distinguished representatives from the different disciplines to serve on the committee and to add to the contribution made by the lay members of the committee, including, as they should, representatives of animal welfare organisations.
The existing committee has ably carried out its task of helping my predecessors and myself to balance the needs of animals against the needs of science and industry. The controls introduced by the Bill require me to continue that balance and, in clauses 19 and 20, establish the Animal Procedures Committee, which will take over the work carried out so well by the advisory committee.
During the debates in another place a number of suggestions were made about the composition and terms of reference of the new committee, and they are now reflected in the Bill.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me the gratitude of many people for introducing the Bill so conscientiously, and particularly for deciding to introduce it so early in the parliamentary programme?
The goodwill established between the Home Office and many animal welfare bodies through the introduction of the Bill — the Home Office has listened to the representations of those bodies—will continue only as long as the number of experiments on animals reduces from year to year and amendments in Committee are discussed constructively.

Mr. Hurd: I am sure that both those results will be forthcoming, for different reasons. What my hon. Friend says is true. People will accept the need for a number of animal experiments, provided that they are shown to be necessary—the control in the Bill will ensure that—and that an effort is being made to reduce them.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Will not this committee have a vital role to play? There is some concern about the membership and the list of names from which my right hon. Friend will select the members. Will he encourage hon. Members to submit names for consideration?

Mr. Hurd: I am always delighted to receive suggestions from all right hon. and hon. Members as to how I should exercise the powers of appointment that the House has given to me, and that will continue to be so. The Committee will want to spend some time on clause 19, if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading. It is a careful attempt to reach a balance on membership of the advisory committee. It is right that the Home Secretary should have such guidance before he starts making any appointments.
Clauses 22 to 26 make various provisions for the punishment and enforcement of criminal offences under the Bill. The most serious offences are triable either summarily or on indictment and, if on indictment, carry penalties of up to two years imprisonment, or a fine, or both. I hope that that shows that we are determined to ensure that the courts have the ability to deal firmly with breaches of the law in this area.
We are pleased that we have managed to find a legislative slot in this Session, which was at one time in doubt. We are pleased that the Bill received warm support in the other place, and has support generally. That support is much wider than would have been expected two or three years ago. It comes from the moderate parts of the animal welfare movement, from the veterinary profession and from science and industry, and we are grateful for suggestions that have come from all these quarters.
There has been scope for further elaboration and refinement of points of detail and application. That process has been carried out in the other place, and I am sure that it will be continued here. I believe, from the start that we have made, that the overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to continue in a thoughtful and non-partisan way to sustain the consensus that we have so far managed to achieve.
We all know that we have to think through these things seriously and gravely, and that what is at stake is what we mean by "humanitarian behaviour". The Bill tries to provide a framework within which these decisions can be made, to authorise scientific or experimental work on living animals and to enable those decisions to be based


on a careful assessment of the likely cost to animals and the likely benefits to our species and to other animals. I do not pretend that that is not difficult and does not arouse many emotions, but we are heartened by the support that has been shown.
The Bill cannot satisfy everybody. It will not satisfy those who believe that there should be no experiments on living animals, and it will not satisfy those who are impatient of controls because they think that they go too far in restricting benefits to the human race and other animals that experiments can produce. I hope the House will feel that the Bill is a serious and conscientious effort to tackle the issue in a practical way which makes good use of the unique knowledge and experience of this country, and that we can justify, by our discussions in this place, the wisdom of all those who have thought and worked so hard on the subject.

Mr. Robin Corbett: It is right to remind the House that the Labour party was the first major political party to spell out its attitude to animal welfare, in a document entitled "Living without Cruelty", published in 1978. That was followed by specific election pledges in the 1979 manifesto, which in turn encouraged other parties to make similar promises. I say that not in a narrow party political sense, but simply so that the record may be accurate. It has fallen to the Government to introduce this long-awaited legislation. As it has taken 110 years, it is as well that nobody was holding his breath. I congratulate the Government on crossing over to this side of the road, on showing a much better understanding of the demands of animal welfare organisations and on trying to respond to such demands.
The Bill has two principal authors. The first—and I put this author first deliberately—is my noble Friend Lord Houghton, whose persistence and diligence over many years has helped to forge a coalition of unity and common sense to secure the wide range of agreement on which the Bill is based.
The other author is Clive Hollands who has played such an outstanding role in the animal welfare movement in bringing people together. It is to Clive Hollands that we are indebted, in his book "Compassion is the Bugler", for the best definition of animal welfare. He wrote:
This then would be my definition of animal welfare: dignity, according to animals the natural dignity which is due to them as living, sentient creatures … My only concern is the suffering we inflict on animals whether it be for food, clothing, knowledge, sport or pleasure. If we could learn to respect and accord to animals the dignity which is their due as living beings, suffering, pain and torment would end.
I support the Home Secretary's commendation of the work of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who I know has had an open-minded approach in the discussions with all those involved in the preparation of the Bill. He may or may not feel that this commendation is helpful to his career.
I acknowledge the criticisms of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and others about the inadequacies of the Bill. It is not as if it has been rushed. New legislation was called for by the Littlewood committee in 1965, and the Halsbury committee in 1980. The Home Secretary's advisory committee joined in in 1983, as did the triple alliance of the British Veterinary Association, the

Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments in the same year.
Against that background, I have to tell the Government that the Bill is not adequate to what needs to be done. The machinery that it plans to put in place, while an improvement over the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, needs to be strengthened. We shall look to Parliament and the Government to improve the Bill as it goes through, if it gets a Second Reading.
I believe that science should be for life, not death, and that to some extent, science and the scientists have failed us. It is in many senses incredible that, after all these years and millions of experiments upon live animals, we know so little. If we can generally get men and women safely into space and back, we can find non-animal alternatives to live animal experiments. We are mastering the mysteries of space. We have devised some gruesome weapons of destruction that are able to land death accurately thousands of miles away from the launching base. We can make deserts bloom. We have built such machines as will travel underwater around our globe without surfacing. However, we are only at the comparatively early stages of finding, without putting millions of animals to death each year, cures and treatments needed for the health of man.
The Government say that the number of experiments has fallen and that is true, depending on where the measurement is taken from. There are now more experiments on animals than there were in 1954, 1955, 1956 and 1957. In 1957 about 2·5 million experiments on animals took place. Last year there were about 3·5 million experiments.
What offends many people is that the Bill does not instantly propose to do away with tests such as the Draize eye test, the LD50 test, testing for beauty cosmetic purposes or warfare experiments. A combination of project licences, individual licences and the work of the animal procedures committee could mean that such procedures are ended and that every individual licence is scrutinised for the purpose of the experiment which it proposes, but we need to know about the timescale. By how much are the Government committed to achieve these and other objectives so that there is a steady and continuing reduction in the number of experiments and the number of animals involved?

Mr. Charles Irving: I take interest in the subject because I have done limited research, but I cannot discover any action by the Labour party, when it had the opportunity in power between 1964 and 1970 and from 1974 to 1979. What did the Labour Governments do?

Mr. Corbett: I say with a straight face that I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make a party political point. I sought to put on record no more than the truth. On 23 March 1979—a Thursday—the then Labour Prime Minister announced from the Dispatch Box Government plans to set up a Royal Commission on animal welfare. The issue was debated the following Friday, but certain other events occurred rapidly which made it impossible for the then Government and Prime Minister to do anything. It does not help to throw bricks through windows. We all stand guilty of not doing enough for animal welfare. I do not want to prolong the argument, but the Conservative party is late into this business.


The Bill does not mention the Government's willingness or determination to secure a continuing fall in the number of experiments and their replacement by non-animal testing techniques.
Many of the major pharmaceutical firms have developed cell and tissue culture techniques as alternatives to the use of animals. That has been reflected in a fall in the number of animals used for experimentation since 1976. However, that has gone neither far nor fast enough because the numbers are still above what they were 32 years ago.
Between 1952 and 1976 there were 109·9 million experiments with live animals. Between 1977 and 1983 there were 32·4 million experiments on animals. In 1984 the figure was 3·5 million. That is a total of 145·8 million experiments. The wonder is that we still know so little.
My heart tells me that there should be a quick end to all experiments on live animals; my head tells me that that is probably some way off. There is a moral and an ethical problem from which the House cannot run away. For example, what do we do about the ten most common forms of cancer or about the curse of multiple sclerosis which strikes with such devastation at an increasingly young age? What do we do about the growing social problem of senile dementia, said to be the single most pressing socio-medical problem of the century as we live longer? It is estimated that about 700,000 elderly people are already afflicted and that unless a treatment is found the numbers will rise with the increased percentage of elderly in our population.
I have a friend who has just marked — he says celebrated — his 30th year of paralysis from the neck down. He contracted polio at 16 years of age. That disease has now been beaten—though too late for him. His life is a remarkable and humbling example of what the human spirit can cope with.
Measles, diphtheria, mumps and whooping cough are now all treatable and curable—mainly at the price of animal experiments. The breakthrough of antibiotics such as penicillin has enabled us to fight infectious diseases. Smallpox has been eradicated worldwide. However, we still lack treatments for the most common forms of cancer, heart disease, rheumatism, arthritis, asthma and AIDS. Not only humans have benefited from this research. Research on animals has advanced veterinary practice, for example among dogs and cats. The figures about the abuse of such so-called pet animals published by the RSPCA today gives none of us any cause for pride in our claim that we are a nation of animal lovers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): Perhaps it is timely for the House to consider that the total number of cats and dogs used in experiments in laboratories last year was 20,000 and that the total number of such animals put down by the RSPCA was over 100,000. That is an indictment of our abuse of animals.

Mr. Corbett: I agree.
Why is the Bill not called the "Laboratory Animals Bill" or "Laboratory Animals Protection Bill"? The 1876 Act had a title which reflected the fact that experiments involved cruelty. I hope that hon. Members on all sides will support changing the Bill's title. The two Bills considered by another place had that different title.
The powers of the Animal Procedures Committee should be increased. As the Home Secretary made clear,

that committee's role is critical if the Bill is to be successful. The committee should be able to initiate action without the Home Secretary's approval if it is to have a properly independent role. I understand if the Government are afraid to give the committee a blank cheque—although they seem to be spending money like a drunk on a Saturday night—but that problem can be solved in the Bill.
The Save British Science campaign warned us last month about the dangerous cuts in investment for scientists and research. It said that the economic and social effects on the United Kingdom may not become obvious fox a few more years and added:
However, we should warn the Government that when they do they are likely to be grave and effectively irreversible".
That was the verdict of the advisory board in June 1985. Last month that was backed by those involved in the campaign, including 49 fellows of the Royal Society and eight Nobel laureates—no mean bunch.
The important point is that such cuts in research mean, inevitably, that there will be fewer scientists helping in the work of finding alternative non-animal tests. That point needs both making and understanding.
We want the committee to have a duty laid upon it to monitor regularly what is happening, especially in tests that involve the most severe category of pain. The judgment or likely degrees of pain involved in any experiment are difficult to access, but that underlines the need for an obligation to be placed on the committee to keep that category under constant review. To that extent—I do not say this in any carping sense—both the committee and the Home Secretary can learn from experience and from the mistakes made in the granting of project licences.
We shall look to the committee, having a specific duty to avoid the unnecessary use of animals in experiments, to try to secure a reduction in animal usage. I accept that that is implied in the Bill, but it should be clearly stated—if for no other reason than that it would be in keeping with the European convention, which states in its preamble:
resolve to limit the use of animals for experimental and other scientific purposes with the aim of replacing such use wherever practicable.
It is important that the committee sees all project licences that involve pain at its most severe assessed degree. I have no wish to add to bureaucracy, but such a procedure woud be a powerful deterrent to applications where there has not been proper consideration of a project design that brings it into a lower category of severity.
Clause 26(3) places a three-year bar on prosecutions for offences, and we shall want to consider that. There is often a time lag between the conducting of experiments and the reports of them being received, accepted, and actually published by learned journals. I have details of one experiment, with which I shall not weary the House, involving 40 monkeys. It was carried out in 1976 or even earlier, but the details were not published until 1979, In another test, involving monkeys, a report of the experiment was submitted in January 1983 and, accepted in May 1984, but the tests took place about 1980–81. Of course I understand that Home Office inspectors were likely to be involved earlier than that, but no one could claim that they are infallible. We should consider a longer period for possible prosecutions, perhaps five or six years, to take account of that point.


Clause 22(3) raises the issue of secrecy and members of the committee. I think that the Bill has that the wrong way round. It puts the onus on members of the committee to prove that they acted responsibly, rather than on the prosecution to prove recklessness. That cannot be right and we shall want to consider that.
We shall also want some assurance that the representation of interests on the committee is properly balanced. We shall want to ensure that the balance does not move too much one way or the other over a period. That has happened with the Farm Animal Welfare Council, although I do not expect the Home Secretary or the Minister to be aware of that. There has been great concern about the way in which the balance of representation on that council has altered over a number of years. We want to ensure that the legitimate animal welfare viewpoint is strong and not diminished over the years.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he can give us an assurance about the inspectorate. We welcome the proposal to appoint six new Home Office inspectors, but that solves only part of the problem. We must be sure that both in the Home Office and in the inspectors' offices there is adequate support staff to ensure that the proposed procedures work with the minimum of delay. We need further assurance, although we have some already, that the inspectorate will, when it feels the need, have advice from independent experts.
There are other detailed points, but we shall deal with them in Committee. However, I want to underline that we lay great stress on the powers and the independence of the committee, which is critical to the proposed new structure for better control of live animal experiments.
What we must all understand, if we do not already, is that research is never predictable. I am told that about nine out of every 10 experiments do not yield the expected results—not that they are wasted, because even if they lead in an unexpected direction, they increase man's knowledge of himself and how we work. We have an appalling legacy of unconquered disease. Some eight of the most common forms of cancer are caused by our lifestyle and environment. That suggests that we would be well rewarded of we put additional cash into the preventive aspect of the National Health Service so that more is done to stop people becoming ill. It is no new thought, but investment is wholly inadequate.
The United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research has told us of the great advances during the past 25 years. Children with leukaemia can now, more often than not, look forward to full and normal lives. Several other cancers have become curable. Prevention of cancer, especially lung cancer, is now possible for thousands of individuals. We know too that, caught early enough, the lives of hundreds of women can be saved each year if they are screened for cervical cancer and treated early enough.
There will be quite speedy changes in the number and nature of experiments as alternative techniques are developed —partly under pressure from the Bill and partly because, as the oil runs out, many of the oil-based products we appear to find essential to our daily lives will be relegated to scientific museums. I hope that that will add to pressure to find more natural alternatives.
I want to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to give the Bill a critical welcome. We want it to be improved in major ways because we want to ensure that we take this rare, long-awaited opportunity to turn it into a vehicle for real reform of live animal experiments—achieving a steady reduction in the number and range of experiments.
Nothing that we do with this Bill should remove the sense of humility that we should feel about experiments on live animals. As Clive Hollands said, we need to
accord to animals the dignity which is their due.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Many right hon and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I think that the House would greatly appreciate brief speeches.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I must begin with both a declaration of interest and a confession. I am on the main board of Boots, a company engaged in the research and development of new drugs. I confess that I am one of those who are deeply affected when confronted by animal suffering. I would not go so far as to say more deeply affected than when confronted by human suffering, but it is often a struggle. I care passionately about the welfare of animals and I confess that, in relation to this Bill and to animals, I am biased. I make that confession at the outset in order, I hope, to put the rest of my remarks into perspective.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, which represents a fair and reasonable attempt to balance public concern about the welfare of animals with the need to continue to achieve medical advances which benefit the lives and health of both man and animals. In particular, I welcome the Bill's objective of bringing about a reduction in the numbers of animals used in experiments and the modification of experimental techniques, especially in relation to specific pain and suffering.
Not everyone will find the Bill perfect in every respect, and I am sure that some further amendments will prove necessary, but most hon. Members—indeed, I believe all—will welcome a measure which is long overdue. There have been 13 unsuccessful attempts under successive Governments to reform the 1876 and 1911 legislation, all of which have failed. The measure is long overdue and is likely to be controversial, but it is essentially a humane measure. Therefore, the Bill must command the support of the House and all caring people.
I join the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the extent of consultation upon which he has embarked and the degree to which he has succeeded with the legislation in satisfying a broad spectrum of people on all sides of the argument. Of course he has not satisfied the lunatic fringe militant movement. They are wicked people, more interested in politics than in animals. I wonder how many of them would withhold insulin from their diabetic children or refuse open heart surgery to their infant born with heart disease. I wonder why they fail to make it clear in their copious literature that a great many non-experimental tests on animals must take place because of the statutory requirement to batch-test many drugs already on the market for public protection, and that that, too, applies to a number of pesticides. They are disruptive and destructive people. They confuse the issue. They


cause suffering to countless animals by their irresponsible behaviour and, above all, they do not represent sincere animal lovers in Britain.
However, on the other side of that fringe—a few of them, I admit, are only just on the other side of that fringe—are sincere people. Millions of people not represented by the militants care genuinely about animal welfare, among them hundreds of my constituents who welcome the Bill as an important measure of reform.
In the Bill the scope of control is greater; the justification criteria are sharpened; the licensing system is greatly tightened; and an attempt is made to define limits and to grade severity of pain. New registration requirements are introduced, as are new provisions about the re-use of animals, in particular relating to animals which have been anaesthetised. Inspectors are to have greater powers, and, importantly, the animal procedures committee is to be created. Offences against the Act will be dealt with far more severely than ever before.
Those are all welcome, progressive measures. They are genuine reforms. But I hope it will not be another 50 years or so before the safeguards in the Bill are added to if the Animal Procedures Committee or other evidence shows that to be necessary.
One criterion of a civilised society is the way in which it treats its animals. It is a criterion which is bound to lead to mixed emotions. On the one hand, there is the undoubted suffering which animals endure during some, but not all experiments, which are stomach-churning and deeply distressing even to read about. On the other, there is the agony suffered by arthritis victims, the grief of a family when a father is struck dead by heart disease, the millions of people killed by cancer, and, against that, the hope and joy that a cure would bring the world over.
Experimentation is about hope and results. Terrible diseases have been eliminated, as my right hon. Friend has shown—diseases which claimed lives as recently as 50 years ago. Animals have been among the main beneficiaries. Diseases have been wiped out and a great deal of suffering by animals has been saved. Almost every time one takes one's pets to the vet, they are likely to benefit from experimentation which has already taken place.
Surgical techniques, microsurgery and anaesthesia have all greatly improved as a result of animal experimentation, and thousands of men, women and children have benefited and regained a better quality of life. All the well-known drugs and vaccines, which are too numerous to go into, such as the antibiotics, could not have been discovered without animal experimentation, as well as the less often quoted treatments for Third-world diseases, such as leprosy. The Bill faces the daunting task of establishing the important new principle that benefits from any experiments to mankind have to be weighed against the suffering that will be caused to animals and that, wherever possible—and it is becoming increasingly possible—alternative sources must be sought. We must not allow experiments that are unnecessarily painful or the use of unnecessarily large numbers of animals. I do not for a moment suppose that the Bill will provide a perfect solution to any of those problems.
I am still concerned about the interpretation and determination of permitted pain thresholds, and—something that has not been mentioned before—fear among animals. Animal instincts are strong, and fear is the most easily fed. Wherever the experiment permits,

tranquillisers and pain killers should be used to minimise both, although it should be stressed that by no means all experiments, even major ones, involve either pain or distress, as I have witnessed in our own laboratories. There, devoted technicians who are animal lovers keep animals that they are testing as pets in their homes and the animals only visit the laboratory about once a month. Progressively fewer animals every year are being used in experiments there.
Then there is the vexed question of experimentation for non-essentials, such as cosmetics, which include, as has been said, many everday toiletries such as toothpaste and baby-care items. They remain untouched by the Bill. Certainly nobody wants toxic substances to be sold in any of those categories. Everyone wants consumers to be protected. But at what price in animal suffering do we gain a new pink, blue or green stripe in our toothpaste? I hasten to add, before I am deluged by letters from toothpaste manufacturers, that that may be an entirely inappropriate example. It is inappropriate, but it demonstrates the point graphically, and eventually a justification test may be required in that general area.
The LD50 test rightly arouses deep emotions. I agree that its monitoring is important, as is its restriction. But, regrettably, it is essential that that experimentation should continue in order to enable safe maximum doses to be set—for example, where the difference between a lethal and a therapeutic dose for a cancer patient may be very small indeed.
The "me-too" drugs also came under fire in another place, but, there again, new versions of existing medicines are often desirable as they represent improvements and become available to patients who may be resistant or allergic to existing drugs. Allergies cannot be dismissed lightly because, not infrequently, there are life and death implications for some patients and severe effects for others.
No legislation can make animal experimentation agreeable. Man's biblical domain over animals can be morally maintained only by the exercise of humanity towards them. The Bill represents a courageous step to limit animal suffering, ducked by successive Governments in the past both in this country and in the United States. It should be welcomed wholeheartedly by all who care about animal and human welfare.

Mr. Michael Hancock: I should like to echo the sentiments already expressed by all the hon. Members who have spoken about the benefits that can accrue to animals from experiments. The alliance does not advocate a total prohibition on animal experiments. We want the minimum number to be carried out. We recognise that the health of animals has improved, and we hope will continue to improve, because of these experiments.
The alliance does not support extra-parliamentary and illegal action taken by extremist elements. They damage the cause of animal welfare and take much public support away from the strong lobby for animal rights. But it would be a mistake to say that the Bill is universally welcomed and will do as Clive Hollands, to whom the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) referred, said and improve the welfare of and care given to animals.
If we genuinely believe that our fellow creatures on this planet have an equal right to dignity and to enjoy their life span—for many it is short—we must all work towards


an end to all forms of experimentation. That is why the welcome to the Bill is not as warm in some quarters as it might have been if there had been a greater ambition to arrive more quickly at that end result.
We must all surely welcome the fact, that, for the first time in more than 100 years, the Government are at least attempting to update the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. The current proposal, which is hailed as a giant step forward for laboratory animals and is used for propaganda purposes by the so-called animal activists does little to protect laboratory animals, to reduce animal experimentation or to promote alternative methods of experimentation. The Bill does not go nearly as far as it should and must.
The Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry, which is the drug industry's trade association, has welcomed the proposals. Do hon. Members think that the association believes that the Bill will have an effect on the almost 2 million experiments, or 55 per cent. of all experiments that will be performed in 1987? Of course not. The association predicts that it will perform yet another 2 million experiments in 1987. The executive director of the Research Defence Society—a pro-vivisectionist organisation — has said that he cannot think of a single experiment allowed now that will not be allowed in the future. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people hoped that the Bill would go at least some way towards outlawing these experiments—the Draize test and the LD50 test — about which hon. Members know only too well. The drug companies and the pro-vivisectionist lobby admit that the experiments will not be stopped.
It has been argued that, for the first time, the Secretary of State will be given more power to control animal experimentation, but that is not true. Section 8 of the 1876 Act gives the Home Secretary discretion to refuse and revoke licences to which he may attach any conditions that he believes expedite the objectives of the Act. Furthermore, under section 21 the Secretary of State may disallow or suspend any certificates granted under the Act. The Secretary of State already as considerable powers which are in practice rarely, if even used. The Bill creates more red tape and encourages the fear that licences and projects put to the Department will be given an automatic rubber stamp.

Mr. Peter Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that the new powers given to the Secretary of State mean that it will not be the drug companies that will decide whether an experiment should be continued? For the first time, hon. Members will be given the responsibility to check on experiments. The hon. Gentleman has referred to outside organisations. One may respect their views, but they by no means have the final say.

Mr. Hannock: That is all well and good, if we can be assured that there will be adequate staff to police the Bill's provisions. The fear which many people share is that there will not be sufficient resources to enable that policing to take place. More than 3 million experiments are performed annually, most of which are paid for out of public money and claimed to be performed for the public benefit. The 1876 Act and this legislation provide no mechanism for

public accountability. No one outside Whitehall and the scientific establishments has any real say in the permitted experiments.

Mr. Corbett: What does the alliance say?

Mr. Hancock: It is abrasive for the hon. Member for Erdington, who rebuked an hon. Member for trying to introduce a political trend in his speech, to make from a sedentary position comments which are extremely distasteful.
The Government have told us that the Bill has been loosely worded to allow for flexibility through the years, but the Home Office guidelines, which are meant to explain this bill mean that that flexibility swings like a pendulum. It can swing one way or the other and, in the end, laboratory animals could be in a worse plight. The guidelines might be set out to appease public opinion, but they have no legal standing. They are not explicitly admissible as evidence and can be changed without Parliament's consent.
The Bill is dedicated to the idea of flexibility, which does not seem to me to be an unquestionable virtue. Flexibility means that one can bend. If one is entirely flexible, one can bend both ways. A Bill that is almost empty without any prohibitions in it and that does not say, "You cannot do this to an animal," must be open to all sorts of abuses and unwelcome practices.
In particular, we must trust the human nature of the politicians, including the various Home Secretaries now and in the future who will implement the legislation, and of the people whose livelihoods and professional ambitions are concerned with experimentation. It is difficult to see where the Bill will put the necessary brake or check on this practice. The guidelines have no legal standing. They can be changed without the necessity for direct consultation with the House. They are open to questioning.
Many hon. Members will undoubtedly speak out against the various clauses, suggesting that some are vague or must be amended in Committee. Clause 5 provides for the Secretary of State to issue project licences. Clause 5(3)(d) refers to
the advancement of knowledge in biological or behavioural sciences"—
a vast and unrestricted category, which allows for any type of experimentation. Clearly, the Government intended this, because it states:
In devising new controls it is very important not to put industry at unnecessary risk".
One can only believe, therefore, that the issuing of project licences will not be restrictive. One of the factors that must be seriously considered in granting a project licence would be whether the viability of a particular project or company would be put at risk if a licence was not granted.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Am I right in saying that the hon. Gentleman would like to see heart disease and cancer conquered, in addition to a continuation in the advances which have been made in conquering other diseases? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he believes that it is possible without animal experimentation to conquer such diseases and continue to improve what we have already achieved?

Mr. Hancock: I speak with some personal experience on that point. I had the misfortune to be given a son who was born with a congenital heart disease, and for the past nine years we have battled with the problems that that


entails for a young lad growing up. Of course I want see improvements to the health of every human being and to every creature on our planet. I said at the beginning that I do not see that the alliance's standpoint is anything but a constructive and realistic approach to animals being used in experimentation. Far be it for any hon. Member to suggest that it was an opportunist stance to take. I have been actively involved in animal welfare campaigns for the past 20 years. Certainly, most of my adult life has been dedicated to that end. Of course I want to see experiments and the health of everyone improved.
I refer hon. Members to the points raised about the duplication of experiments where animals are subjected to breathing in tobacco fumes day in and day out and are then killed so that their lungs can be examined simply to prove a point which is already well known to everyone, that high tar and low tar cigarettes have various degrees of resultant illness on the lungs of creatures that inhale them. There are many problems there. Duplication of experiments and projects has to be looked at properly and must be policed properly and effectively.
Subsection 4 causes some concern. It gives the Secretary of State the right to
weigh the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefit likely to accrue".
Who defines "benefit" and "adverse effects"? Is a benefit a new headache drug to be added to the many already on the market? Is it right that we should continue to experiment on animals just to bring yet another product on to the market when there are shelves full of products dealing with the same symptoms? I do not believe that that is right and I do not believe that the people of the country, when they sought advice and help on this matter, expected the Government to produce something which would allow that duplication to continue.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is making an extraordinary speech for a party headed by a medical practitioner. At least the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is not here to hear what is being said in his name. Is it alliance policy that if it formed a Government, any company which wished to develop a new product would have to have express Government permission before it would be permitted to employ people to do that?

Mr. Hancock: The Minister is being slightly absurd. One would hope that an alliance Government would put fairly high on its list of priorities an animal welfare Bill that would encompass the many things which need to be done at present. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) were here he would say just that and that we would be concerned to implement legislation taking account of the needs of all creatures on our planet and not putting people at risk.

Mr. Roger Gale: rose—

Mr. Hancock: I should like to develop the argument a little further.
I am sure that many hon. Members have read clause 19 and are concerned about it. It establishes an Animal Procedures Committee and specifies its composition. The composition of that committee needs close examination. It is important that it reflects animal as well as scientific interests and those of other people.
It is important that the Bill offers real appreciation of people's concern for animal welfare. It needs firm and

strict policing. I hope that the Bill will be amended in Committee to give it that strengthening before it comes back to the House. The Government must have the willingness and the backbone forcibly to implement their own proposals. I hope that tests such as the Draize test and the LD50 test will be changed in Committee, and outlawed by the time the Bill comes back to the House. I hope that the Bill will be amended so that those diabolical practices are banned.

Mr. Gale: In reply to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, (Dr. Miller) the hon. Gentleman said that he was not being opportunistic. He then went on to refer to the LD50 test. With respect, he owes it to the House and probably to his constituents in Portsmouth, South, to explain how, tonight, he is putting his name to an alliance amendment, which is pusillanimous in the extreme, whereas last week he signed an early-day motion, which covered many of the points about the LD50 that he is now raising, and not long before that he wrote to the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, which supports the Bill, saying that he considered it an honour to be associated with the organisation, and it had his whole-hearted commitment.

Mr. Hancock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. Unfortunately the fund failed to live up to the expectations of its associated members. It did not have what it takes to push the issue further. When the fund wrote to me and explained its concern about the various forms of animal welfare, it appeared that its heart was in the right place, but when the chips were down it failed to come up with the commitment that I thought would be there and worthy of it.

Mr. Cohen: Could it be that FRAME failed to live up to expectations in pressing the need for tighter control over animal experiments because it is dependent on a Government grant to keep it going? That might be why it toed the Government's line.

Mr. Hancock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing that point to our attention.
I should like to refer to our amendment on the Order Paper. I am disappointed, as are my colleagues, that you did not select it, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, we live with that decision. Our amendment tells the House that we have a commitment and are not happy with the way in which the Bill is constructed. We have a more enlightened and ambitious approach to animal welfare. We wanted the House not to give the Bill a Second Reading in the hope that the Government would reconsider their position.
The Bill is unacceptable in its present form. We sought to move an amendment, but unfortunately we were not successful. However, we hope to amend and improve the Bill in Committee. When it comes back to the House, I hope that it will encompass more of the points which, I am sure, most hon. Members and people outside want to see in it. It is no good crying crocodile tears in this place over animal experimentation and suggesting that one has sympathy for animals if, at the end of the day, one does not put one's vote where it matters.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is not winning himself many friends tonight. For three years several hon. Members on both sides of the House, people from the British Veterinary Association and a range of animal welfare groups have worked together to bring forward a


measure that can command the support of a wide range of people. The hon. Gentleman is making the lowest common denominator of empty rhetoric with no constructive policy proposals and in a sense damning the project without giving any evidence of a single hour of constructive thought. Does he think that he has done himself much credit by that?

Mr. Hancock: The Under-Secretary is entitled to that opinion, but I have tried to say that there has to be another opinion, that the Bill does not go far enough. I fully accept that hon. Members, people outside the House, and the other place have worked valiantly trying to put the issue before Parliament. We have heard tonight that we all stand guilty for the part that we did or did not play in trying to change the legislation of the past hundred years. Then when we come to present the House and the country with a chance to change what has happened for more than 100 years, we should go as far as possible without compromising the principles that we have explained time and time again, and so assure the constituents who write to us on these issues.
The importance of animal welfare is linked to animal dignity and whether or not experiments should be allowed to continue at their present level. I have said time and again that it is not fair that the number of experiments should continue at their present level and there must be changes. I had hoped that the House would have the courage to go further than the Government want to go under the Bill.

Sir Dudley Smith: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) spoke from the Opposition Front Bench with great sincerity, and I agree with many of his points. With due respect, he showed great responsibility, as did the official Opposition, in allowing the Bill to go though without challenge, while—

Mr. Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Dudley Smith: I have only just started.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your instruction or advice, Mr. Speaker, on whether hon. Members who speak in this debate should declare an interest?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has only just risen and has been speaking for only about 30 seconds.

Sir Dudley Smith: I have neglected so far to declare my interest, but I intend to do that in á moment.
Before I was interrupted, I was saying that the hon. Member for Erdington was correct to reserve his fire for the Committee stage. He was generally right to give the Bill a fair wind.
How the hon. Gentleman's speech contrasted with the speech that we have just heard from the so-called alliance, from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). If ever there was a man for all seasons we heard him speak tonight. We heard the hon. Gentleman out grubbing for votes with the kind of comments which we have come to expect from the so-called alliance. They will do anything and move in any direction if they can discredit both the Government and the official Opposition. I shall

say no more about the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, as his speech speaks for itself. The hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself.
Several hon. Members have said that they believe that a country's attitude towards society is revealed in the way that it treats its animals. Indeed, the concern that hon. Members show in the right context is the hallmark of an advanced society. That is why I welcome this long-overdue Bill as it puts us in advance of most other nations. It reforms and improves the present situation in relation to authorised experiments with animals.
I wish to declare an interest and I hope that that will satify the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). For much of my professional life I have been connected with the pharmaceutical, toiletries and cosmetics industries and I continue to be so involved. In the past, when I was not a Member of the House, I worked full-time in those industries, so I speak tonight as one with allegedly some expert knowledge on this subject. I will endeavour to put that knowledge forward for the general good when we reach Standing Committee, if I am fortunate enough to be selected as a Committee member.
The most important point to bring out, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, is that the Bill introduces the requirement for all experiments to be assessed before they are carried out. It gives power to the Secretary of State, backed by the expert committee which we have been discussing, to refuse to allow animals to be used in any experiment which is not really necessary. That is the key requirement of the Bill, and it spells out a considerable advance on the former position.
Of course, unless one opposes virtually all animal experimentation, one must accept that this legislation is a significant step forward. Those who oppose the Bill outright or oppose it very strongly are entitled to their views and to express them in a free society. However, I cannot understand their opposition. I do not believe that they have thought through the consequences for their fellow men if they succeed in banning all or the vast majority of animal experiments.
We must approach the subject realistically and unemotionally. Much nonsense is talked about animal experimentation — we have already heard some of it tonight. Much of it is irrational and emotionally generated. No normal person enjoys using animals for medical, scientific or essential testing purposes. Companies certainly do not—to put it at its lowest, they find it expensive — but until effective alternatives are discovered, it is the only way in which they can proceed. One hopes that the gradual reduction that is already taking place will continue and perhaps gather pace under this legislation.
I find animal experimentation distasteful and I dislike seeing it, as I have on many occasions. But I fully recognise its necessity. The clinicians and laboratory assistants whom I have seen using animals have been caring, dedicated people who are fond of animals. They are not the cold-blooded, evil, Frankenstein-type experimenters that are portrayed by the extremists.
Many of us in the Chamber tonight would not have been here but for experiments that were conducted in the past to produce life-saving medicines. Strong opponents of animal experimentation, such as the hon. Members for Leyton and for Portsmouth, South should ask themselves this question: would I allow myself, if dangerously ill, to


be treated with medicines that have evolved from animal experiments or were tested for toxicity on animals? Perhaps even more important, would I allow my children to receive such medicines to save their lives? There is no room for hypocrisy in such matters, but we hear a great deal of hypocrisy from some people. It is sometimes conveniently forgotten by the opponents of the legislation that general animal welfare in Britain has improved remarkably as a result of the procedures that are dealt with in the Bill. New vaccines and treatments for animal illness have been discovered and, as a result of experiments on animals, we have fitter, happier and healthier farm animals, bloodstock and domestic pets.
I welcome the fact that sensible and co-operative views on the legislation have been taken by the more moderate and responsible animal protection movements, especially the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, or FRAME. Like them, I have queries about several details which could be debated in Committee, and I and my hon. Friends will need assurances in some instances. However, I am delighted that the Government have introduced such a comprehensive measure.
As one of Parliament's delegates to the Council of Europe, I played a part in formulating and encouraging the Council's convention on the subject. Several hon. Members on that delegation, notably the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), played their part too in formulating the Council of Europe's proposals. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the convention, which is about to be signed, sets the pattern for Europe. But the Bill goes much further. It is stricter and more comprehensive than the Council of Europe convention. If the Bill becomes law, our new practices will put us in the forefront as an example to our European neighbours. That is as it should be.
I am especially pleased that the Bill extends to the breeding and supply of animals and their care outside the period of experiment. During the years, procedures in that respect have improved considerably, but we all have a honor of domestic pets being stolen by Bill Sikes characters, who sell them illegally to laboratories. That rarely happens now, but that is why I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether, in the future, all such animals must be specially bred for the purpose.
The proposed Animal Procedures Committee will be given wide advisory powers. We shall have to be satisfied that that committee is properly staffed and composed of energetic, sensible people who have animal welfare at heart.
I want to see the inspectorate increased and I shall certainly push for that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will say something about the inspectorate and the possibility of an increase on the current proposals.
The case for proper, well-supervised pharmaceutical experimentation is overwhelming. To stop it or to restrict it too severely would be a dangerous blow against medical progress and the fight against disease. There are many who accept the need for medical tests but who strongly oppose experimentation for toiletries and cosmetics. This was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim). Animal experiments in respect of cosmetics and toiletries are, as the Home Secretary stressed in his speech, tiny when compared with medical experiments. Of the cosmetic tests which are carried out, 75 per cent. use human volunteers. The use

of data banks and in vitro alternatives also contribute to a reduction in the use of animals. They are used only when there is no alternative.
There is a wide discrepancy between the use of the word cosmetic, which is in common parlance, and the description of the word for regulatory purposes. The common factor defined in cosmetic products is that they are applied to the external parts of the body and inside the mouth and they thus include products such as soap, toothpaste, shaving cream and shampoo. As has been mentioned, we have laws which insist that these products are properly tested. Manufacturers have a legal and moral obligation to ensure their products' safety. Manufacturers that did not ensure such safety would soon be sued out of business. All manufacturers have to meet the laws passed in this House, and, like it or not, laws brought about by EEC regulations which are for the protection of the individual.
This legislation calls for every licence application for cosmetic testing to be automatically scrutinised by the Animal Procedures Committee. I strongly support that new move. It will be effective in cutting out those types of test which are non-essential. There must be some which are non-essential and it is our duty to see that they are eliminated.
Present-day medicine would come to an end without the use of animals in medical research. One day I hope we shall find effective alternative procedures. Meanwhile research leading to advances against such dread diseases as cancer, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, leukaemia and arthritis must continue. I think that any right-thinking person would agree. We are introducing supervisory legislation, and such legislation must strike a balance between the need for human and veterinary medical progress and the genuine care and welfare of laboratory animals. I believe that this Bill makes an honest attempt to do this and that ultimately it will succeed.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I shall oppose this inadequate Bill tonight. As the House will be aware, I put down early-day motion 411, and a Second Reading amendment to the Bill in the same terms as the early-day motion, which was signed by more than 30 Members on this side of the House. The amendment has not been selected but the provisions of the early-day motion would be vastly preferable to the Bill.
I also produced the Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Bill, which I presented under the ten-minute Bill procedure. It is a detailed Bill, which embodies the proposals in my early-day motion as well as tightening up the law on experimentation. It is vastly superior to the Bill that the Government have produced.
The early-day motion condemned unnecessary experiments, but that idea has been lost in this debate. Many unnecessary animal experiments go ahead and they should be stopped. There should be a ban on animals for purposes connected with cosmetics, tobacco and alcohol. There should be a ban on the Draize eye irritancy test, where irritants are administered, without pain relief, until the animals eyes burst. There should be a ban on LD50 poisoning tests, where the animals are painfully poisoned until 50 per cent. die; a ban on behavioural and psychological tests, where the animals are driven mad; and a ban on warfare experiments, where the animals are deliberately shot, irradiated or subjected to germ and


chemical warfare experiments. Officially, according to Labour and Conservative Governments, we are not supposed to be into germ or chemical warfare, but it is all right to have warfare experiments on animals.

Mr. Conal Gregory: The hon. Gentleman has given a long and impressive catalogue of bans. Will he include the ritual slaughter of animals for religious reasons?

Mr. Cohen: I can happily talk about that. I should prefer to see the pre-stunning of animals. I do not think that legislation is the right way to achieve that. It is best done through consultation with religious leaders. It is an important point. The religious arguments are about which method is the most cruel. The imams and rabbis think that pre-stunning is more cruel than their methods.
My Bill would ban those experiments immediately and reinstate the independent committee on animal experiments, which would exclude vested interests.
Those points clearly show the inadequacy of the Government's Bill, which does not end any of those tests. The claim is made that the Bill regulates experiments. That was the basis of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which is now deemed to be out of date. That Act, like the Bill, acquiesced in a whole range of animal experiments. The Bill refers to the protection of animals, but the regulations seem designed to protect the experimenter rather than the animal. There is no commitment to phase out, to ensure the reduction of or to promote alternatives to the tests in the Bill.
A spokesperson for the Research Defence Society—a pro-vivisection group funded by the drug and cosmetic multinationals—said of the Bill:
I cannot think of a single experiment allowed now that will not be allowed in the future".
The time is right for some prohibition, not for more of the same rubber-stamping regulations. We should prohibit the unnecessary experiments and practices listed in my amendment, in my early-day motion and in the Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Bill.
My Bill dealt also with cruel blood sports, as did the one presented last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Mcnamara). There is no mention of cruel blood sports in the Government's Bill. They have no intention of introducing such legislation, for fear of upsetting their squirearchy. That is despite the fact that the polls, even among Conservative voters, are overwhelmingly in favour of abolishing blood sports. The Northern Ireland Assembly has twice voted unanimously to abolish hare coursing. The Government have overruled that decision and have not included it in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not canvass too strongly his private Member's Bill. This is a rather different measure.

Mr. Cohen: I agree, Mr. Speaker, but my Bill can be compared directly with the Government's Bill, and mine is vastly superior. A Bill which purports to deal with animal welfare should also deal with cruel sports. There have been two unanimous votes in the Northern Ireland Assembly on hare coursing, which have been overruled by the Government. Those who support fox and stag hunting are a bunch of sadists who enjoy the fun of the kill while devastating our countryside. As for animal fighting, especially dog fighting, it is outrageous—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is rather wide of the Bill, which is about animal experiments.

Mr. Cohen: We are dealing with the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. If you do not think that dog fighting, hare coursing, and fox and stag hunting are cruel, Mr. Speaker, you are in a different world from me. In regard to animal fighting, it is outrageous that the law has not been tightened up. My Bill would tighten the law and increase penalties for organisers and those who attend. It would also ban the import, sale or advertisement of fighting dogs. How much longer will the Government ignore the British public's wish for such action against barbaric animal fighting? That is all I wanted to say about cruel sports, but it needed saying.
The Bill is restricted to experiments. The Government do not call them experiments—they are a bit squeamish about that. Perhaps that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) wanted to retitle the bill, although he decided that he did not want to call them experiments either. The Government have spoken only on scientific procedures, to ensure that public sensitivities are not offended, but they have pushed the Bill through as quickly and as quietly as they can. They started in another place to avoid proper public understanding of the issues and a subsequent reponse.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that using the words "scientific procedures" widens the Bill's scope? The word "experiment" is much more difficult to define. My hon. Friend has it the wrong way around.

Mr. Cohen: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has said, and I shall take it into account. We should face the fact, however, that the public understand this as animal experimentation, and we should address our comments to what the public understand.
There are other examples of the double talk behind the Bill. I have here the letter which the Minister of State sent to all hon. Members in December 1985. We should consider it. He wrote:
the Government has published a Bill to provide greater protection for animals used in scientific procedures.
It does no such thing. As has been said, the Bill will stop no experiments that are currently done.
The letter continues:
We must all look forward to the day when animal experiments are not necessary.
How pious.
If that is the Minister's intention, why is he doing so little to promote non-animal alternatives for experiments? The Government are providing £200,000 over three years. I described that amount as tokenist. I was wrong—it is derisory. The Minister's letter speaks of "the highest possible standards". Those are fine words, but the Home Office advisory committee is packed with people such as Dr. Coid, who was responsible for designing the primate cages which featured so infamously in the recent prosecution of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Dr. Coid is still on the advisory committee, so where are the Minister's highest possible standards?

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will my hon. Friend accept that in that case the court found both the doctor and the veterinary surgeon not guilty? To use that example under the privilege of Parliament is to abuse this place.

Mr. Cohen: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. That doctor was found guilty at the first court hearing. The case continues. There is documented proof about the state of those cages. That person should not be on any Home Office advisory committee.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If, as my hon. Friend suggests, the matter is still going forward, I trust that you will rule that it is sub judice.

Mr. Speaker: When we are dealing with legislation, as we are now, it is in order to mention matters of this kind.

Mr. Cohen: We are talking about the composition of the Home Office advisory committee. It is packed with licensed experimenters, proven vivisectionists and individuals with vested interests. The Home Secretary said in his letter that he was placing great store on the animals inspectorate and the animal procedures committee. I shall deal with them individually.
The Government employ 15 inspectors in the animals inspectorate to check on 21,000 vivisectionists, who cut up over 3 million animals each year. The Bill contains no provision to increase the number of inspectors and to ensure that they are independent of the industry. I understand that all of them are current or ex-licence holders. Worse than that, the local authorities and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals do not back them up by carrying out checks and reporting upon malpractices in laboratories and breeding establishments. A provision for such checks is contained in my Bill, but no similar provision is contained in the Government's Bill.
As for the Animal Procedures Committee, the Minister said in his letter that it would
comprise scientific and lay members with an established concern for animal welfare.
It is a one-sided committee. It is filled with pro-vivisectionists. If the committee is to play a central role in looking after the welfare of animals it should be independent of any vested interest. It should specifically exclude those who have a vested interest in animal experiments—for example, those who have links with drug companies and licensed experimenters. My Bill ensures that. The Government's Bill does the opposite.

Mr. Mellor: Perhaps I ought not to be drawn into a debate with the hon. Gentleman, whose mind is so closed on this issue, but I wonder whether I may mention to him four members of the advisory committee: Dr. Balls of FRAME, Mr. Hollands, the secretary of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Vivisection, the scientific adviser to the RSPCA, Dr. Hampson, and the legal adviser to the RSPCA, Mr. Field-Fisher. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us which vested interest they represent?

Mr. Cohen: I shall not be drawn by the Minister on that point. That committee is overwhelmingly loaded with vested interests and licence holders. The Minister referred to Dr. Balls of FRAME. He has written papers which make it clear that he has taken part in a number of vivisections and animal experiments, yet the Minister tells the House that he belongs to the anti-vivisection lobby. If that is the best that he can do, he will have to do much better. The Animal Procedures Committee should be independent. It should also play another role. Its primary responsibility should be to secure each year a continuing and sizeable

decrease in the use of animals in laboratories. As has been said, nothing in the Bill is about getting any reduction, any regulation or continuing reduction, in animal usage.
The breeding establishments obviously need to be regulated. They have grown up uncontrolled in the last few years, and I have submitted parliamentary questions to the Minister urging the strong regulation of breeding establishments. My Bill would ensure such proper regulation and the provisions in it make the Government's provisions look feeble. For example, only purpose-bred animals could be used, and that would stop the use of stolen pets. I have a local paper here which carries the headline, "Catnapped."
Domestic pets are being stolen for use in laboratories, and my Bill would ensure harsh penalties for anybody engaging in that practice. It would also ensure that the origin of animals in the possession of laboratories and breeding establishments and those animals that are sold by them would have to be fully recorded. The Minister talks about provisions in the Bill going along this route, but under the Bill it will not be possible to implement them because, as has been said, the inspectorate is low on staff and the RSPCA and the local authorities are not to be given responsibility for regular spot checks of breeding establishments.
Local authorities have a check role in other countries. In Sweden, for example, municipal authorities have that right. Why can the Government not give such a regulatory role to our local authorities and the RSPCA? They would add greatly to the strength of the underpowered inspectorate. The Bill merely refers to the inspectors in that role, but the inspectorate has limited numbers and a limited role in respect of the breeding establishments. The Bill does not even cover the full range of animals which may be bred for experimentation, and needs substantial tightening up in terms of regulating breeding establishments.
Under my Bill, the export of animals for experimentation would be banned, but not under the Government's Bill. The heart of the Government's measure is the dual system of personal and project licensing, and many hon. Members have set great store by that. My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington set great store by this new system, but it is little more than a rubber stamp. How can anything with such a small inspectorate to implement it be any more than a rubber stamp? How can the Animal Procedures Committee, which is of non-independent composition and is loaded with pro-vivisection vested interests, be more than a rubber stamp?
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 go into great detail about how the Secretary of State has to weigh the value of experiments before he grants a project licence, and he does that on the basis of his committee's advice. Given the composition of that committee, it is clear which way that advice will be biased. The present system for signing the appropriate form for experiments to be carried out will just be transferred to the approval of a personal and project licence.
I want to read to the House a couple of examples showing how the system operates at the moment There is no substantial change to this under the Government proposal. The first point about personal licences is that Lord Platt, an ex-president of the Royal College of Physicians, said:
As a professor of medicine, I had to sign many applications for licences and certificates and as head of a Royal College had


to countersign hundreds of them. As a member of the Medical Research Council I had to acquiesce in them and for several years I was a member of the Home Office committee set up by the Act of 1876. I think a lot of the signing and countersigning, although it may have preventive value in discouraging research workers from embarking on particularly undesirable experiments, is done as a routine. I base this on the fact, which I noticed many times, that if I took the unusual, unexpected and unwelcome action of refusing to sign, the applicants went to another professor or to the head of another Royal College who promptly signed for them.
Can the Minister say that that will not happen in future?

Mr. Mellor: Yes.

Mr. Cohen: I hope that the Minister's intervention has been recorded. We shall hold him to account for that. There may be another stage with the advisory committee, but the person who signs in the first place for the project licence to be approved will do so as a matter of routine, as did Lord Platt.
Professor Sir Cyril Clarke said at a British Association for the Advancement of Science symposium in 1982:
Does Dr. Rankin think the signing of animal licences by heads of certain organisations does anything more than to add an air of respectability to the licence?
The Government are merely trying to add an air of respectability.
A few years ago I had an administrative job and nearly every morning there used to land on my desk ten or more animal licences. While I did my best I did not really feel I knew what many of the applicants were asking for. One of the most difficult things was to know where to sign. Fortunately I met fairly soon the then President of the Royal Society and he said 'What you want to do is to have a stamp. If you have a stamp you can look through the certificates and you can give the stamp to your secretary and save a great deal of time.' I did this and it was very helpful as regards time, but I still did not think I was doing my job. I do not believe that anybody. not even the President of the Royal Society, can know the ins and outs of all the applications for a licence.
Such processes will continue in a revised form—perhaps I should say on a revised form — under the Government's procedures. The letter heading of a drug company or an existing licence holder will probably be enough for a project licence to be granted and for the person receiving the licence to be able to carry out experiments on a vast number of animals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington mentioned the Littlewood committee. The Government even abandoned that committee's proposal for an external referee. That would at least have introduced an outside referee—if only nominal—to judge projects. There will be no realistic, independent review of whether a project is worth while or of whether using animals is the best way to achieve the aims of a project. Denmark passed an Act in 1977 which provided that alternatives must be used wherever possible. Under our Government's preferred method of regulation, no similar provision appears in the Bill.
My last major point relates to health issues and the drug companies. Many animal experiments are for "me too" products—similar products to existing ones, with only slight alterations for a different brand name. Those are repetitive products, of no medical benefit, and they involve repetitive animal tests. Those are unnecessary tests. As an article in the Sunday People observed:
The name of the game is profits and to hell with animal suffering.
Those tests should be stopped.
Drugs companies are more interested in cures, particularly wonder cures, than in preventing illness or tackling the causes of disease. The wonder cures are much more profitable, but, although they provide more profits for the drugs companies, they mean more illness and unnecessary deaths for humans and animals. While this goes on all resources are put into animal tests, precious few resources are being applied to preventive medicine, and the Government have cut the resources available to the Health Service for preventive medicine. There is little given to help deal with the environmental and social causes of, for example, Britain's biggest killers, cancer and heart disease. These diseases could be greatly reduced by epidemiological studies of their causes and by strong Government action, for example in banning known carcinogens from our environment and action against smoking to improve the quality of our life.
It is cheaper to carry out tests on animals than to have long, carefully controlled tests on human beings. Even for cures, self-culture tests are often superior to animal tests. That is not my idea, but a statement from the Institution of Cancer Research. Opren was produced for arthritis sufferers after extensive tests on animals, but the drug was disastrous and brought about many human deaths. One cannot extropolate from animals to humans in many cases.
The Minister spoke about face cosmetics. Which animals have faces similar to the human face? Most of them have fur. The nearest equivalent is probably a baboon's bum. I know that many Conservative Members may look similar, but the Minister cannot argue that there can be a proper extrapolation from such tests. Tissue culture is more reliable, more consistent and more humane. As as rule of thumb, drugs should not be given to humans until they have been tested on humans in properly controlled conditions. That is expensive, but it is much better for the nation's health and for stopping the vast loss of life.
The Bill is inadequate. It institutionalises the killing of 67,000 animals every week without any proof of worthwhile purpose. The number will go up once the Bill is on the statute book. There is no promotion of non-animal alternatives, and no immediate ban on the unnecessary and morally unacceptable experiments. There is no proper regulation—it is left firmly in the hands of the experimenters. There is no attempt to shift the burden of proof to those who carry out experiments, rather than giving them licences without problems. There is no shift from vivisection-based drugs treatment to preventive medicine and tackling causes. For those reasons, I shall oppose the Bill.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I remind the House that 17 right hon. and hon. Members still wish to take part in the debate. If the House passes the motion at 10 o'clock, we can go on a little longer, but if all hon. Members make speeches of 30 minutes, we shall be rather late.

Sir Bernard Braine: I suppose that I should welcome the Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with his customary good humour and moderation. After all, we have waited 110 years for an amendment to the substantive Act. During


that period, there have been numerous instances of leading figures in our society expressing doubt and misgiving about the practice of using animals in experiments. They have included the great Lord Shaftesbury, Archbishop Manning, Cardinal Newman, Mr. George Bernard Shaw, Mahatma Gandhi and many others. Perhaps the one closest to my memory is a former colleague in the House, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Many leading figures in our society, respected writers and so on, have held that it is morally wrong to use animals as a laboratory tool. Today, however, we must face the fact that much more is known about these controversial practices. Many of my constituents certainly view them with revulsion, all the more so since there is now growing scientific evidence that some experimentation is inconclusive and less effective than clinical case studies.
Over 20 years ago Sir George Pickering, regius professor of medicine at Oxford university, told us that he had
often heard it said that the scientific basis of medicine is applied physiology and therapeutics applied pharmacology. The idea, as I understand it, is that fundamental truths are revealed in laboratory experiments on lower animals and are then applied to the problems of the sick patient. Having been myself trained as a physiologist, I feel in a way competent to assess such a claim. It is plain nonsense.
I do not expect everyone to agree with all that I am about to say, but a wide range of alternative techniques are now available, including cell and organ cultures, bacteria, yeast and enzyme systems, computer prediction and clinical observation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) made an impressive speech when she made the case for animal experimentation being justified on the ground that it was necessary for the conquest of disease in man. For a moment I shall concede that. But in my opinion to use animals for testing cosmetics is wrong. It is wicked to use a sentient, captive and unconsenting individual and to cause it suffering and pain when the only potential benefit is to beautify someone else. For me that is unacceptable. The test of the Bill then is to what extent it will eliminate or at least reduce suffering, pain and distress to laboratory animals.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, the Bill is not to be judged as a political issue. It is a moral issue. Only about half the research involving the suffering of laboratory animals is conducted for medical reasons. Only about one-fifth is conducted to satisfy the requirements of our safety laws. In many cases where animals are used for non-medical purposes, alternative techniques are available, and yet in 1984, the last year for which I have figures, 17,512 animals were used to test cosmetics and toiletries.
One would think that after 110 years in gestation the Bill would provide the opportunity at last to strike a blow for more civilised behaviour and for sanity by eliminating all animal testing for non-medical purposes. That is what I have dreamed of for the last 30 years. I had hoped that someone would have the courage to introduce such a Bill.
A constituent drew my attention to the United Kingdom newspaper for the Wellcome Foundation published as recently as 18 November which said:
Wellcome has been active in the consultation stages of the Government proposals. If these are enacted, the company does not believe that it would lead to any hindrance in its research involving animals.
That is what the commercial world thinks about the Bill—that it will be no hindrance to its work.

Mr. Mellor: I do not think that my hon. Friend has chosen the best example. The Wellcome Foundation is a non-profit-making organisation and is the world's largest producer of vaccines, especially vaccines to cure animal diseases. It would be grossly irresponsible if anything that we proposed interfered with its work. However, every piece of work that it does will, under the Bill, be subject to a project licence. I do not think that my hon. Friend's constituents are asking him to stop the work of the Wellcome Foundation.

Sir Bernard Braine: Obviously, each application must be judged on its merits. I am not seeking to stop that kind of work.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [Lords] and the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]

Sir Bernard Braine: I am not seeking to stop the work of the Wellcome Foundation. The Minister will have responsibility for judging each application on its merits. What I am saying is that any hope that the Bill would reduce the numbers of animals used—and I am referring to non-medical experiments—has not been realised.
The Committee for Information on Animal Research, which I understand is a moderate body, is highly critical of the Bill. It feels that in certain areas it is too weak to prevent unnecessary pain, and in others is too vague to be regarded as an advance in the protection of animals.
My hon. Friend has spurred me on to say a great deal more than I had intended. The Bill stipulates that no cat or dog should be used under licence unless it has been bred at or obtained from a designated breeding establishment, although exceptions may be made by the Secretary of State. Why should there be any exceptions? Cannot the Home Office understand the disgust felt by ordinary people that dogs and cats are bred for experimentation of that kind? If such animals are used, what is the likely effect regarding dogs and cats stolen from their owners and traded to laboratories?
Under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, the use of animals to gain surgical dexterity was prohibited. However, this Bill relaxes that provision so that animals can be used to practice micro-surgical techniques. My hon. Friend said a few moments ago that all applications would be referred to the Animals Procedures Committee. Presumably projects would be carried out only under terminal anaesthesia. Who will constitute that committee? There have been great advances since 1876. Distinguished surgeons have experimented with live human foetuses—injecting them with steroids, killing and then dissecting them and then reporting their findings in the medical literature. If such murderous behaviour was legal, why should we show concern about animals?
Where are the safeguards against the re-use of laboratory animals and their subjection to repeated procedures? The restrictions in the Bill do not take effect until an animal has been subjected to a series of procedures. What, pray, constitutes a series of procedures? The Committee for Information on Animal Research asks:
When does one procedure become a series, and what sort of series ranks as one procedure? Consider as an example giving an


injection one day, putting dye in food the next day, taking samples two days later, and then performing the cycle again, with or without variations, for the next six weeks. Is this one procedure, or seven, or 21 or more? Until the terms are defined protection against re-use is meaningless, and a researcher who wanted to keep an expensive primate permanently available could link various routes routines to make a series.
All that is to be governed by a code of practice. Neither the hon. Member for Erdington nor I had that document before the debate started.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I picked it up from the Vote Office at 10 minutes to 11.

Sir Bernard Braine: In that case, the hon. Gentleman is reinforcing my point. He received his copy much later. I went out and got mine. I have had no opportunity to read it.

Mr. Hughes: Ten minutes to 11 in the morning.

Sir Bernard Braine: In that case, the hon. Gentleman received an earlier warning than I did. I did not receive the document, and I doubt whether any other hon. Member received it before the debate started. The hon. Gentleman is being helpful. If he received it at 11 am even he would be a genius to have mastered it by now and to be able to test the Bill against what it says.
Let me go further. The Bill does not require experimenters to use humane alternatives. It does not require such persons to be skilled in analgesia, anaesthesia, painless death or even in the handling of animals. Moreover, it increases the secrecy of animal experimentation. That does against the trend in recent days when public and Parliament have been asking for more disclosure of what goes on behind the scenes. Those who breach confidentiality can be sent to prison. What happens to accountability in those circumstances?
A great deal of reliance is put upon the judgment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. How is that to be exercised? How can he judge pain and distress? Who will advise him? Will he be guided by the people who carry out the experiments? He will have the advisory committee but we want to know who will be on that. That is fundamental to an understanding of the safeguards that are supposed to be laid down in the Bill.
There will be a statutory advisory body with wide powers to advise on policy, practice and procedure. Who will constitute that body? Who will man its subcommittees? There Lordships tried to strengthen this part of the Bill in another place. In Committee the Bill will have to be tightened up a great deal more when we come to the relevant clauses. We should be told about this before the vote, not after it. I feel badly let down. Had I had the opportunity to study the draft code of conduct beforehand, I might have understood the Bill better.
I ask these questions because we are being asked to approve the Bill without knowing in advance what the guidelines will be. The RSPCA has reported today the most appalling growth of ill-treatment of animals in Britain.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The right hon. Gentleman should follow that up by saying that the RSPCA's comments today showed great cruelty to animals, not from scientists but from the public.

Sir Bernard Braine: Exactly. I agree with that. I was simply pointing out that we should view the way in which we treat animals in Britain with increasing concern. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping me to underline it.
I understand that the RSPCA has seen the guidelines in advance and I can say that it is disturbed by some of them. For example it does not consider that sufficient scientific expertise will be brought to bear on the licensing procedure. Then again where is the guarantee, should an experiment be designed to deliberately inflict substantial stress, that the expert advice of an animal ethologist will be sought automatically?
Pain is not only the cause of distress for laboratory animals. Where then does the Bill provide a safeguard for larger animals used in long-term studies to allow them to play and have social contacts? Primates are expensive animals to acquire, so one does not want just to inject them and kill them off. What are the arrangements for treating these animals as humanely as possible?
All licence applications for work on cosmetics will be referred to the animal procedures committee. Why is there not the same requirement for work on alcohol and smoking-related research? For eight years I was chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism, and I know something about this national scourge. I am also president of the Greater London Alcohol Advisory Service which covers the capital. If animals are used in this type of research—I am not sure that they are—why are they not subjected to exactly the same sort of controls as licence applications for work on cosmetics?

Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the provisions for the protection of mammalian embryos, as shown in clause 1(2)?

Sir Bernard Braine: I shall not be drawn on that. It is not for me to say, because I am not an expert in this field. I shall not speak about particular procedures. There are, however, massive gaps in the Bill.

Mr. Charles Irving: indicated assent.

Sir Bernard Braine: I note that my hon. Friend is nodding in agreement. We can fill the gaps in Committee, but it is sad to bring a Bill of such consequence to the House without having the guidelines laid before us so that we can study them in advance.
If such points are raised by animal protection groups, why was not thought given to them ealier? Why bring the Bill before us with these questions unanswered? The Bill is too little and too late. It is an acute disappointment to me, and I predict that it will do little to reassure the many people who view animal experimentation, especially for non-medical purposes, with distaste, if not disgust.
Unless we have clear answers to all these questions, I cannot support the Bill. I know that it will get its Second Reading and will go to Standing Committee. Strenuous efforts will be made to improve it. I see around me those hon. Members who know a great deal more about this matter than I do. At the end of the day, the test is: does the Bill reduce the number of animals used in these experiments? Does it mean that they will be handled more humanely? Does it eliminate the use of animals in experiments for non-medical purposes? That is the test. I venture to think that the Bill in its present form will not not pass it.

Mr. Ted Garrett: I should like to emulate hon. Members by giving a short speech. For better or for worse, I seem to have been associated during the past six or seven years with animal experimentation. I notice that the hon. Member who used to represent Wellingborough—

Mr. Peter Fry: I still do.

Mr. Garrett: Despite boundary changes, the hon. Gentleman still represents that constituency. Well done. On 27 June 1979, he introduced the Protection of Animals (Scientific Purposes) Bill. He will well remember the eight acrimonious sittings before the legislation was finally abandoned. We took the advice of the Minister, who said that there would be time to await Council of Europe legislation. That legislation was agreed upon. The Government have ratified the treaty—not all European countries have. In the main, the Bill fulfils virtually all the matters that were in the protocol.
It seems fashionable tonight to declare an interest. By nature, I am a shy, retiring man and I do not brag too much about my achievements, but I must declare an interest in that I am the honourary chairman of a very notable and worthy organisation — the all-party group for the chemical industry. Hon. Members who are speaking in this debate and who are not members of that group should consider joining that highly educative body where the debate and discussion take place without any acrimony but we all emerge somewhat wiser.
I also have to declare an interest in that for 20 years I was an employee of Imperial Chemical Industries. I worked with scientists and found that they were human beings like us. They are as sensitive as anyone here tonight. If one works in the chemical industry, one quickly understands that it involves handling dangerous substances. Therefore, it is important to recognise that the people who work in the industry need to know that those dangerous substances are properly tested. If one wanted to forget about work and went home, one would find that there are paints, detergents, adhesives, man-made fibres, pharmaceuticals and modern foods which all have a chemical content in one form or another. We all know that such chemicals, in high enough quantity, can cause immense harm. An innocuous chemical such as salt can damage the human body sometimes beyond repair. Therefore, each one of us has to assume that no chemical can be considered totally harmless. I think that the House will agree that it is essential that the House should accept the responsibility to protect society from the harmful effect of certain chemicals, particularly at work. The people who produce and manufacture so many of the material needs that we use at work or in everyday life should also be given some protection. It is intolerable to expect society to expose people to chemicals without prior investigation as to the danger of the chemicals. I hope that nobody will challenge that analysis.
We are all talking about 1876. That was the heyday of Victorianism, when our manufacturing base was not declining but was at its peak and was continuing to expand. Even the Victorians recognised the consequences of long exposure to chemicals. It was primarily for that purpose that experiments took place in that period. The experiments were of a much wider degree than now with much more intensity and certainly less care for animals.

When the Victorians introduced the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, they were already alarmed about the exposure of their fellow beings to chemicals. After the Act, some experiments helped the human race to survive when they were involved in production to meet material needs. Much more knowledge came from that Act and the proper control of experiments, from which we have benefited. However, we cannot deny that that knowledge was gained through animal experimentation. Society has been made responsible for the care of animals, but it has gained. too.
Today most experiments can be carried out only on living mammals. Indeed, mammals meet the needs of most experiments that are necessary for our society. At present, no suitable alternatives are available. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) quoted examples of substitutes at length. I admire his view, but, frankly, those substitutes do not measure up to the need to experiment on mammals, of which the most popular is the rat. To protect the human race, it is necessary to have those experiments.
This might surprise some hon. Members. Rats and some other mammals show a surprising similarity to man in their response to toxic substances.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Man sometimes shows a surprising similarity to rats. [Interruption.]

Mr. Garrett: Hon. Members can say that, but 1 am sticking to my view.
To reject animal experiments on the basis of an occasional failure would be no substitute, and would not help to protect mankind. If, for example, the rat is not allowed to substitute for man, and if scientific knowledge in medicines and even foodstuffs is to be halted or restricted, some people might welcome it, but I regret to say that man will have to be the substitute. If man is riot the substitute, it all stops. Progress stays where it is. Is that what opponents of the measure would like?
I have declared my interest in the chemical industry. It is a responsible industry. It remains actively committed to seeking a voluntary alternative, as an integral part of its work, but none has yet emerged.
I pay tribute to those employed in the industry because they are fully aware of their responsibilities, socially and in law. They look upon the Bill as a correcting balance in the care of animals. At the same time, pushing forward the frontiers of science will benefit not only this generation, but future generations. I hope that we can extend cur horizons to think of those future generations. I support the Bill in its entirety and I hope that most of my colleagues will, too.

Mr. Charles Irving: I have sat through the debate and listened to every speech. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) on a most powerful speech. He is a great defender of people and animals, and he is concerned about abuses, too. My right hon. Friend is recognised on both sides of the House for the compassion and concern that he displayed this evening.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind if I say that he was just a trifle hard on my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Under-Secretary deserves an absolute


accolade for what he has achieved tonight in bringing this measure to the House. We have waited more than 110 years for it.
There are many hon. Members, and I am one, who do not agree with all that is in the Bill. I accept that in this particularly sensitive subject it would be very difficult indeed to find common ground with reason. The FRAME organisation, whose director is Mr. Ball, produced a moderate and sensible report, one which would be very difficult for most reasonable people to find much fault with. We will not obtain, whatever happens, all that some Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, and I, would like to see. I would like to go much further than the Bill but I think that we must be satisfied as from little acorns grow large oak trees.
Few people would argue that the great strides in medicine which have rid the world of the most appalling diseases, owe much to the extensive testing of drugs on animals. Sadly, this is perhaps where some of us part company. In a great many cases that unnecessarily causes the most appalling pain and suffering.
Great strides have also been made in the science of testing drugs. It is time that we redressed the subject of animal welfare in the light of these changes and advances [Interruption.] I shall wait for the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) to get up from his knees. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's speeches as they are always first-class.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I was conducting a simple animal experiment, Sir.

Mr. Irving: The hon. Gentleman will see that the continuation of my speech has brought him an immediate recovery.
Basically, many of the proposals under the European Commission appear to me to be somewhat more compassionate than some of the British proposals in the Bill. For instance, we have not banned the LD50 experiments and we are rather inclined to allow very painful tests for trivial commercialism. We do not require scientists to use alternative techniques and the Bill does not require experimentors to be skilled in pain killing. However, with all the faults, we are making progress and that is why I feel that I must support the Bill tonight.
I welcome its main provisions. It establishes a much stricter regulatory control over those who engage in animal experimentation. It also takes a step forward in the recognition of animal welfare by placing a duty on those engaged in experimentation to minimise the pain, suffering and distress that may be caused to laboratory animals. It does not go far enough for me and for some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but it is a beginning, and it has been a long time arriving. The strict provisions surrounding the granting of personal and project licences will, I hope, raise the standards of care for laboratory animals. They should also ensure that projects whose value remains marginal in respect of the pain or distress caused to animals will be stopped.
I congratulate the royal colleges on stepping up coverage of such issues and on providing new training and qualifications for those engaged in laboratory work with animals. I recognise the rapid pace of change in the medical and scientific world and the need for the Home Secretary to be constantly advised in matters relating to the

granting of licences. The Home Secretary will forgive me if I say that I know of no legislation that can make a committee truly effective.
The Home Office inspectorate has received universal praise for its commitment and work. I endorse that. The Bill will no doubt drastically increase its workload. At present, 15 inspectors monitoring more than 500 establishments and about 3·5 million experiments annually. There is an urgent need to redress the inspectors' work load in the light of the Bill. I hope that we shall hear a commitment from the Secretary of State in this respect. I recognise the appalling difficulty in trying to frame objective legal tests for pain and distress, which ultimately are subjective assessments.
The Bill is full of weaknesses, but I can offer no constructive advice on the issue, except to say that, in view of the grave concern among the organisations that care for animals, half a loaf is better than none.

Mr. Roland Boyes: As so many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak on the Bill, I shall restrict my remarks to one subject—the fact that the Bill does not eliminate all experiments for purposes of warfare. I oppose the Bill for many reasons, but they have been well spelt out by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and partly by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine).
Warfare experiments are the most obscene, unacceptable and disgusting of animal experiments. They are used for exactly the opposite reasons that the experimenters would have us believe. I am not alone in assuming that. The majority of the British people agree with me, according to the poll conducted by the National Anti-Vivisection Society. I understand that a distinguished director of that organisation has just resigned, and I wish to pay tribute in the Chamber to Brian Gunn for his dedicated, tireless work on behalf of the organisation.
The poll carried out by the NAVS showed that 78 per cent. of people were against testing animals on nerve gases, 73 per cent. were against experiments to test the effectiveness of weapons, 74 per cent. were against wounding experiments, and 70 per cent. wanted a ban and new legislation on warfare experiments. Any hon. Member who goes into the Lobby to vote in favour of the Bill will be voting against the wishes of the vast majority of the people.
Donald Barnes, a distinguished American scientist who has experimented on animals once said:
The more I look back I see their"—
that is, the scientists'—
greatest fear is in people finding out how the animals are treated and thereby initiating steps to correct them.
I hope that small steps will be taken this evening along the path that Donald Barnes wishes to go.
That quotation came from a leaflet produced by a new organisation called Peace and Animal Welfare. It links the obscenity of the use of animals for warfare experiments with those people in the peace movement who wish to eliminate the use of chemical and biological weapons.
The vast majority of the experiments to which I have referred are carried out at Porton Down. I had the opportunity—I shall not say pleasure—of going to the chemical defence establishment to see what happens there, or rather, I thought that I was going to see what happened.


I spent a day at Porton Down and did not see one experiment although 30 animals are tortured to death there every day. I was taken into a number of laboratories, but there was not one animal. That is not the way to treat elected Members of this Parliament. We, above all, should be able to see what is happening there. If elected representatives cannot see, what opportunity is there for the people to know what happens? We have found out what happens, which is why more and more people will demand that that establishment is closed.
All we saw was a few beagle dogs playing in a cage not realising that within a matter of time they would receive a lethal dose from a hypothermic needle which would turn that happy life into a living hell of pain and suffering.
I am not talking about a few animals only. Let us consider the number of animals that are unnecessarily wasted at Porton Down. Between 1952 and 1970 at Porton Down alone—many experiments are carried out at other establishments on behalf of the scientists at Porton Down —1,000 monkeys, nearly 200,000 guinea pigs and 1·75 million mice were used in experiments. That is the magnitude of the problem. As with many other numbers that we are given by defence experts, we suspect that the numbers are kept low and are well short of the true figure.
In 1984, scientists admitted that 11,000 animals died at Porton Down as a result of experiments, the majority of which were the result of chemical experiments.
Why does that hideous place exist? I said that I would demonstrate that propaganda plays an important part in its existence. We live in the world of Winston Smith in George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" and double speak. An attempt is made to convince us that wounding experiments are to learn about healing, when they are about mutilation. An attempt is made to convince us that chemical and biological weapon experiments are to learn about defence when they are really about offence. We are told that they are about protection, when they are really about killing. We are told that they are about armies, when they are really about civilians.

Mr. Keith Best: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boyes: I shall give way in my own time, not when you lot want. Chemical weapons are not about armies. They will be aimed at unprotected civilians. There is all this nonsense about protective clothing, but there will be none for dock workers, those who work on airfields or for backup forces for those at the front. Innocent civilians will be the targets of chemical weapons, and there will be no protection for them, no matter how many animals die at Porton Down.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I share his abhorrence of needless experimentation on animals. Can I offer an answer to his question about why there is a need for experimentation at places such as Porton Down and Winterbourne Gunner? As long as the Soviet Union has a massive chemical weapon capability down to basic unit level, which is being used in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and when the German civilian population has no protection, does he agree that there is a duty on any Government to try to provide the basic minimum of protection for troops when faced with aggression? The hon. Gentleman knows that Britain has no offensive chemical weapon capability.

Mr. Boyes: I can only conclude that the hon. Gentleman wanted to make that point and has not listened to a word that I said. I have just demonstrated that experiments at Porton Down have nothing to do with protecting the population or troops, but everything to do with conning people into believing that there is a defence against chemical weapons. We know that, as with nuclear weapons, there is no defence for the unprotected population. If man is so stupid as to launch chemical or nuclear weapons at others, he will suffer for his stupidity. That has nothing to do with the millions of animals that are tortured to death in the name of protecting man, when there is no protection.
Sheep, pigs, monkeys and many other animals are used in wounding experiments. In a journal called Injury, scientists at the chemical research establishment write:
Anaesthetised rhesus monkeys were shot in the head to investigate the effects of injury. In the 20 experimental animals, a penetrating injury was inflicted by a steel ball with a diameter of 3·2 mm fired at a range of 5 to 10 m from a smooth barrel with an estimated impact velocity of 1,000 m per second. The animals survived from two to 169 minutes.
After having part of their head blasted away from 5 m. Why? We learn more in one hour in a battlefield than from hundreds of thousands of such experiments. Another publication by NAVS says:
Human beings and animals are physiologically different, so such tests can be irrelevant.
Another document says:
Doctors at the famous Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast, who have to deal with the real victims of a continuing war, believe that Porton experiments are of no value to them in treating human patients.
What is the purpose of these experiments if they have no value for human beings? Why has the Minister not said categorically and clearly that the Government will put an end to such nonsense? And what about the chemical and biological experiments? I shall refer to just two of them. All of the experiments are well documented. The Ministry of Defence says that it cannot provide the answers, for security reasons, but the results have been published. I shall quote only from material that has been published by the Porton Down scientists. On the protection of primates against soman poisoning by pretreatment with pyridostig-mine it is said that
Rhesus monkeys were exposed to soman nerve gas in experiments designed to test an antidote. After a medium dose of soman, together with antidote, the animals became prostrate with violent convulsions. After 1-11 minutes they Lost consciousness, and breathing became slow, shallow and laboured and the animals appeared very close to death. After a high dose of soman the animals collapsed within a minute, with violent convulsions and laboured breathing. The animals surviving this stage regained consciousness after 10-30 minutes. The animals then made attempts to crawl about the cage but relapsed after about 1 hour and died.
Are right hon. and hon. Members able to imagine the pain and suffering that those animals went through during the time taken by the experiments? Is it not obscene? Is there not something the matter with men who are prepared to carry out experiments of that kind on animals?
It has also been said about the use of cyanide gas on beagle dogs that
Signs of laboured breathing were 'marked'. Four out of six dogs recovered after one hour but one suffered two grand-mal epileptiform seizures. The sixth dog died 44 minutes after injection of the cyanide.
I asked a parliamentary question about this to discover whether any anaesthetic was given to the dogs to help them through this experiment. The Minister said that no


anaesthetic was administered to them because the Ministry of Defence could not otherwise have carried out the experiments. Beagle dogs are being allowed to crawl around their cages in agony and to take 45 minutes to die.
For animals, Porton Down means torture, mutilation, agony and a slow, lingering death. For people, Porton Down means shame, disgust and degradation. However, as Donald Barnes, the distinguished United States of America scientist said, the more he looked back the more he realised that their greatest fear was that people would find out how animals were being treated and that they would take steps to correct it. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that people are finding out and will initiate steps to ensure that neither Porton Down nor any other chemical defence establishment that treats animals in this way is allowed to continue to exist.

Mr. John Ward: I begin by paying my tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. It is through his patience and persistence that this Bill has been introduced. As a member of the FRAME all-party parliamentary group I should also like to acknowledge the help that I and other hon. Members have received from the chairman of the trustees, Dr. Michael Balls, and its parliamentary consultant, Mr. Bill Annett. Their reasonable, practical and unexcited approach to a subject that is of great concern to so many hon. Members has been an example to all those who would influence the working of Parliament.
I freely acknowledge that this Bill will not satisfy all those who are concerned about animal welfare. Nothing less than a complete ban on animal experiments will satisfy certain groups of people. I am of that group which acknowledges, regrettably, that some animal experiments are still necessary to further the search for knowledge to alleviate human suffering. To those who give priority to the saving of human lives the FRAME goal of reducing the numbers of animals used, minimising their suffering and replacing them with alternatives where possible and as soon as possible, must surely be the right way forward.
I cannot ignore the statement sent to me by the United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research which said that almost all the significant advances in the control of cancer have at some point required experiments on animals. Concerned though I am at any suffering inflicted on animals, I support the Bill as a major and sensible step forward. There are one or two areas where I share the anxiety expressed to me by some of my constituents, many of whom support the main thrust of the Bill and yet seek reassurances, as I do, that every alternative is being explored. One of these areas is the Draize eye irritancy test and I understand that work on alternatives is already at an advanced stage. I hope that when the Bill reaches the Committee stage, as it surely will, there will be an examination to see whether the work on an alternative to the Draize test can be speeded up so that an alternative can be introduced at the earliest possible moment.
The other matter of great concern is the LD50 test. Other hon. Members have spoken about that. It has been said that the formal LD50 test is widely thought to be unscientific and wasteful of animal lives. Reference has been made to the LD50 limit test and I understand that the

development of alternatives to this test is proceeding with all speed. I should like to be sure that the Committee gives positive encouragement to ensure that progress continues. I can find no better words to give my reasons for welcoming the Bill than those used in the joint statement issued by the British Veterinary Association, the Campaign for the Reform of Animal Experimentation and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. The statement says,
It is our belief that it represents the effective compromise between the welfare needs of animals, the legitimate demands of the principles for accountability and the equally legitimate requirements of medicine, science and commerce.
Those words will capture the mood of the House. I hope the Bill has a speedy passage.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) about the deliberate inflicting of wounds on animals for the purpose of discovering how people might react to warfare. That is where the line should be drawn in animal experiments. I am sure that the Minister, while he may have an opinion about the matter, realises that that is not within the scope of the Bill, and it is to the Bill that I wish to refer.
As a medical practitioner, my objective is to cure people. However, that objective should not include the unnecessary inflicting of pain upon any other species. But that is a secondary matter, and I do not start from the premise that we must reduce the number of experiments on animals. I should like the number to be reduced, but that is not my main objective. My main objective is to try to cure many of the illnesses which afflict us.
I understand the moral and ethical objections to the use of animals in experiments, though there are such objections to eating the flesh of animals, and anyone who opposes scientific research on animals surely must be a vegetarian. We who believe that experiments on animals are necessary cannot persuade those who believe that animals should be treated in the same way as humans, and there is little point in trying to reason with such people.
There is not one hon. Member who has not benefited from animals experimentation, whether in the anaesthetic given for the removal of a tooth or in the injections or tablets that we are given before making a trip abroad. In the process of being born, everyone has benefited from animal experimentation.
We have to decide whether, on balance, experiments on animals are defensible. That decision must not be made by those who object to the use of animals; it must be made by people who agree that animal experimentation is necessary. The Government have no alternative but to listen to the views of those who are trying to cure our people.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said that it was not up to us to make such decisions. But it is. We often have to take such decisions, and I strongly oppose tying the hands of people who want to do everything that they can to cure diseases.
Of course there are other ways of experimenting. One can experiment with tissue culture or cells, but eventually it is essential to test drugs on animals. More than 80 per cent. of the animals used in experiments are rats or mice, and we do not usually hesitate to get rid of them by any possible means.


A cell in a test tube or tissue in a dish does not react in the same way as cells in the body, which contain triggers that tell us whether a drug will work or will bring us out in a rash or whatever. That can be detected only by introducing a drug into an animal, whether by injection or by ingestion.

Mr. Boyes: I hesitate to be critical of the doctor who cured the pain in my arm, but I ask my hon. Friend to reflect on one point. Let us assume that his analysis is correct. One of the problems is that most drugs are made by profit-making concerns, which need to make a massive profit. Therefore, the same experiments are conducted on animals in thousands of laboratories throughout the world. Would it not be helpful if each of these laboratories exchanged information, because millions of animals would be saved from suffering in that way alone?

Dr. Miller: That argument bears careful consideration. However, it does not impinge on the moral aspect of whether experimentation on animals is permissible. I agree that if there are ways to cut down on the number of animals used we should use them, and that would be one way. However, there would be a problem, because not all the drugs about which my hon. Friend is talking are the same. There are subtle differences, as my hon. Friend will know if he takes medicines. Nowadays, particularly with computerisation, many doctors and general practitioners feed information on side effects into a computer so that information can be gathered centrally. That means that it is necessary for minor variations to be made in drugs.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington that I have no interest in drug companies. I am not employed by them and do not hold a candle for them. However, they are doing a good job, and if there are ways to reduce the number of animals used, I am sure that they would want to use them, because animals are expensive.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point spoke about cosmetics, and that word is difficult to define. It means not only the products used for beautifying purposes, but those used to help, for example, the woman who has had a nasty operation on her neck, leaving a scar. The cosmetic that she needs to cover it needs to be tried out on animals. One cannot then jump to the conclusion that if the product is manufactured for so-called beauty purposes it should not be tested on animals, because it has to be. All products such as baby powder and skin lotions have to be tested on animals.
I am not making a plea for increasing the number of experiments, but we should look at the thing in balance. As has been said, we do not treat animals in exactly the same way as we treat human beings. If we have a dog or cat that has outlived the possibility of continuing its existence without pain, we have no hesitation in taking that animal to the vet to be put down. The RSPCA disposes of 150,000 dogs a year. Hon. Members say that constituents protest to them about cruelty to animals, but who is it other than their constituents who caused such cruelty to animals that 150,000 of them are thrown into the streets and have to be disposed of by the RSPCA?
I commend the Bill, which ties up a number of loose ends. It is not small. It has 30 clauses which contain much potential for tough argument. However, it shows a step towards progress in conjunction with the people who are

doing the exprimentation. Unless we have good reason, it is not up to us to stultify this further development in medicine.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point says that he opposes experimentation which is not for medical purposes. Most experimentation is for medical or related purposes. I should hate to think that we would prevent the continuation of work to cure the diseases from which human beings suffer. There are two or more main groups of diseases—cardiovascular and cancer. Nothing should be put in the way of attempts to cure them.
Some hon. Members have referred to experimental surgery. I know at least two hon. Friends who would not be here without such experimentation. They have had serious open heart surgery, and no doubt other hon. Members or their relatives have had the same experience. Such operations could not be attempted without experiments on animals. We would fail in our duty as responsible legislators if we put obstacles in the way of further progress.

Miss Janet Fookes: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the 1876 Act had served a useful purpose for many years. I differ from him on that. Those of us interested in animal welfare have been seeking for a long time to remove that Act from the statute book and to introduce a new one. It has been defective since well before I entered the House.
I recall in 1973 introducing a private Member's motion in which I called for an updating of the 1876 Act. One can see how long it takes for a Government to be prepared to take up such a difficult issue.
Successive Governments of both political complexions have dodged the issue. It has taken this Government some courage to come forward with a Bill. I suspect that had it not been for the personal commitment and drive of the Under-Secretary of State we should not be debating the Second Reading tonight.
Having waited so long, I am disappointed at the uneven standard of debate. In particular I thought that the contribution by the alliance was singularly disappointing. It was a string of ill-considered cliches with no coherent alternative. If that was a sample of the policy—making of that body, heaven help us if it ever comes to power. Its intention was to break the mould of British politics. I prefer to keep our traditional mould.
The key issue is the pain and suffering of an animal and how far the Bill prevents that pain and suffering. I have experienced a major disappointment in that the Government have not taken up the suggestion of the RSPCA—with which I am closely associated, as hon. Members know — for what it calls a no-pain clause, which would prohibit pain and suffering to any animal. It was probably too much to hope that that would be incorporated in any Bill. Setting aside that disappointment, the Bill provides a reasonable framework within which to go forward.
Two approaches could have been adopted. First, to name specific procedures that should be banned—and hon. Members have cited many examples, such as the LD50 test, the Draize eye irritancy test, cosmetic experiments and so on. The second approach, adopted by my hon. Friend the Minister, was to draw up far tighter controls, but without naming specific procedures to be prohibited.


I can see at once the attraction of singling out particularly obnoxious tests and banning them. On the other hand, we must recognise the perils of that procedure. When drawing up a Bill we must be very precise in legal definitions. Most of the tests defy such definition. Scientific procedures and work move at a very fast pace. I suspect that any attempt to make such definitions, even by means of orders attached to Bills, would never keep up with the pace of scientific progress. We would always find certain experiments of which we disapproved not included in the Bill or any attachment to it.
Provided that there is good will by the Secretary of State of the day, the present approach is the one more likely to stand the test of time. Frankly, if we are going on precedent, it will be 109 or 110 years before there is another Bill. Therefore, it behoves us to try to get it right.
Much will depend on the way in which the Bill is interpreted. The code of practice is extremely important. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), I am a little concerned that we have not all that long had a code of practice. I recognise the Government's difficulty in presenting this to us. I am sure that there will be ample opportunity in the remaining stages of the Bill to consider that key point closely.
I wish to raise only a few specific points, as I realise that many hon. Members wish to speak. There is the issue of suffering that can be labelled substantial. Where there is a likelihood of that, any application should go automatically to the new advisory committee—or, at the very least, to outside assessors. As I understand the Bill, that could happen; I believe that it should be mandatory on the Home Secretary so to refer it and not to leave it to the Home Office inspector and then a rubber stamp by the Home Secretary.
In the code of practice there should be a requirement that at all times alternatives should be sought. I understand that, under the Bill, that may be one of the conditions attached to a licence. No experiment should be allowed unless those making the application have definitely investigated whether there is a possible alternative. I hope that that provision may be strengthened in Committee.
I also hope that the methods of killing which are set out in an appendix to the Bill will be looked at again and expert veterinary advice taken, because I am not sure that they are absolutely right and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would wish to see that the best professional advice is given in setting out what methods of euthanasia are to be employed with these animals.
Will my hon. Friend clarify the position about registered breeders and suppliers of laboratory animals when he replies? Will animals be specially bred for the purpose, something which the RSPCA is particularly keen on, and which would definitely cut out the possibility of stolen pets being used? Unless that is the case, it would presumably be possible for stolen animals to find their way to a registered breeder or supplier.
There were some ill-judged criticisms of the new advisory committee. I know several welfare members of the existing advisory committee. They have assured me that they are not drawn up in serried ranks of welfarists and scientists in opposition to one another. They work together as individuals. The personal testimony of people such as Dr. Judith Hampson from the RSPCA and Mr. Clive Hollands, whose name has also been mentioned several

times, is that that is a useful and worthwhile committee which is looking at the interests of animals and furthering that. I see no reason why the new committee should not do an equally, if not better, job.
One gap in the Bill worries me. It is wrong that the Bill does not provide for compulsory animal welfare training for those who will carry out experiments, whether the scientific people of the top rank or the technicians, before they are allowed to do so.
I see that fees are to be incorporated in the applications. I see no reason why those fees, instead of going into the greedy jaws of the Treasury, should not be diverted for the running of training courses. I urge my hon. Friend to look closely at that aspect of the matter because there is no way in which policing, however good, can entirely replace the commitment of those engaged in experiments day by day. If they are taught to have a far greater respect and concern for animals that will do more good than any number of Home Office inspectors. That is a point on which I want to lay considerable stress tonight.
The issue of experiment duplication has been raised. I appreciate the practical dificulties, but I hope that it will be possible in the new set-up to try to ensure that duplication does not take place. Perhaps it could be a condition of the licence that the licensee should have searched around to see whether there was any relevant experience that could be used without duplicating the experiment. I put that forward for my hon. Friend's consideration.
Will the code of practice be along the lines of the "Highway Code" or is it of some other legal significance? So much will depend on what goes into that code of practice that it is important that we know precisely where we stand on that point.
There has been criticism of the Bill on the ground that the title—Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill—is not especially clear to the general public. Why is it not possible to have a title that more adequately reflects what we are seeking to do? We are concerned with the welfare of animals used in scientific experiments. I suggest that the Bill's title should more adequately represent its purposes.
It will be apparent that, although I am disappointed about the scope of the Bill, I believe that it provides a reasonable framework and that, given determination by successive Secretaries of State, there will be an improvement in the lot of animals. It is in that spirit that I welcome the Bill and hope that it is given a Second Reading.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I have been involved with animal welfare all my life. I must declare an interest in that I have three West Highland terriers, named Tammy Hansard, Speaker Hansard and Ben Hansard.
I am a member of the executive of the Campaign for the Reform of Animal Experimentation. I should like to add my tribute to Lord Houghton for his tremendous work over so many years. It has been a privilege to serve under his wise and steady leadership.
No hon. Member looks forward more than I do to the day when animals are no longer used in experiments for so-called scientific purposes. In the past 110 years, tens of millions of animals have suffered and died. It is a


disgrace that animal welfare in general and the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 in particular have been untouched for so long.
Hon. Members have asked whether the Bill goes far enough. Many wish that it would go considerably further. Those of us who have the opportunity to serve on the Standing Committee will want to look in great detail at a number of issues to ascertain whether it will be possible to strengthen the Bill, especially in relation to the LD50 test, the Draize eye test and other tests. All hon. Members should ask themselves when deciding how to vote on Second Reading whether the Bill will lead to a reduction in the number of animals used in experiments. There can be doubt that the legislation will not move quickly enough but I am confident that, even if it is not strengthened in Committee, as I hope it will be, there is a strong chance that, within 10 years, the number of experiments will have been reduced by up to 50 per cent.
There is no doubt that the Bill will greatly strengthen research into alternatives. It will increase public awareness which, in turn, will put further pressure on those who would look for further alternatives. It will mean greater parliamentary accountability, as there will be many more opportunities for hon. Members in this Parliament and in Parliaments to come to question Home Office Ministers and to discuss the Bill's operations and effects. In those areas the Bill is really breaking new ground.
The introduction of a new form of individual project licence, compared with licences for individuals carrying out research must have an excellent long term effect. The controls on premises in which experiments take place and the controls on breeding establishments will all lead us down the path of helping to reduce the number of experiments. When the Bill becomes an Act, it will put tremendous responsibility on the Home Secretary and the Ministers at the Home Office. They will have to ensure that the letter of the Act, as it will then be, and the spirit behind it are fully operated.
I briefly want to refer to the mobilisation group. I know that many members of the mobilisation group are sincere and dedicated in their wish to reduce suffering to animals. However, it is being unrealistic in saying to hon. Members and the country that unless all its objectives can be achieved overnight there should be no changes. I think that that would be a disaster because we know that there is no prospect whatsoever of a Bill which will stop all experiments overnight becoming law in this Parliamentary Session or in any foreseeable Parliamentary Session. I understand and respect the sincerity of the mobilisation group, but I believe that its tactics are wrong.
I totally condemn the extremist groups which go way beyond the mobilisation group and are prepared to use violence. The actions of such groups will, sooner or later, lead to the death of individuals because they are much more concerned with creating anarchy and chaos than helping animals. I hope that everyone in the House will totally disassociate themselves from that complete lunatic, extremist and anarchist fringe.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that many of us who are staying for the debate realise that we will be defeated? We want the caution to be put on record that we profoundly believe that a great deal more has to be done. We want to place that clearly on the record for everyone to know.

Mr. Bowden: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is the right of every hon. Member when he catches your eye, to put matters on the record. That is what hon. Members on both sides of the House have been doing. That was not my point. I was talking about the groups that want to destroy democracy and cause anarchy and chaos and use methods of violence. That does not refer to the hon. Gentleman or anybody who has spoken in the debate, so I am afraid that I do not understand his point. There has been an opportunity for all points of view to be expressed.
I think that my final point provides a warning to Parliament. The MORI poll in 1984 centred on the moral issue of this subject. I think it is significant that 53 per cent. of the people asked thought that it was morally wrong to kill or cause pain to animals in any sort of experiment and only 36 per cent. said that it was morally right. I shall not comment further on those figures, but it is something that Parliament must not ignore. The House, through the Home Office, will have a vital role in ensuring that when the Bill beomes an Act, it operates effectively and leads to a progressive reduction in all types of experiment on animals.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: The Bill and its associated guidelines break new ground in requiring the Secretary of State and his inspectorate to award an individual project licence for each experiment, which imposes specific conditions on the licence holder and requires each experiment to be justified. That is in addition to the present requirement that all individuals carrying out research work should be the holder of a personal licence granted by the Secretary of State.
The Bill also controls the premises on which procedures are carried out and includes for the first time the breeding and supply establishments. This point has been raised many times in the debate. I should like to bury the myth that there are body snatchers who collect pets from the streets to experiment on them, because most of the experimentation is done on specially bred animals, because they have to be disease-free, and their breeding and pedigree have to be right for the job to be done correctly. Therefore, it is a myth that there are people going around collecting granny's pet cat or Uncle Bob's little dog. It does not happen in this day and age. Experimentation is an expensive process, and to obtain correct results the right animal has to be used. Such animals are specially bred. I welcome the provision in the Bill that those establishments should be licensed.
The Bill also establishes a new statutory animal procedures committee to advise the Secretary of State. Many hon. Members have commented on the make-up of that committee.
In seeking to bring up to date the law on animal experimentation, the Bill has widespread support and strikes the necessary balance to ensure that the welfare of animals used in experiments is safeguarded, while it ensures that necessary research for the health, welfare and safety of people living in the United Kingdom can continue.
Research benefits not only human beings but other animals, including domestic pets, farm animals and bloodstock. The need for continuing medical. and pharmaceutical research is obvious. Many hon. Members have spoken of the medicines that have been developed to control, for example, epilepsy, asthma and diabetes.


Vaccines can now prevent polio and diphtheria. Smallpox has been wiped out. Medicines can treat many heart diseases and cancers, not only prolonging life and controlling pain, but improving the quality of what little life is left to those who are suffering from terminal illness.
All that could not have been achieved without research on animals. Furthermore, any potential new medicine must be tested to see whether it is likely to work on human patients and to ascertain whether any serious risks to patients could be predicted. The Medicines Act 1968 demands that adequate safety testing be conducted on animals; for example, nearly 90 per cent. of ICI's usage of animals is for medicines research and safety testing, the remainder being for other consumer and industrial chemicals, which is also demanded by the law. The minimum number of animals is used, and since 1977 ICI has achieved a reduction of 50 per cent. in the numbers used. That is a notable fact, because it is despite an increase in the amount of research and safety testing.
Nationally, I believe that the number of experiments has come down from 5·5 million in the mid-1970s to 300 million last year—

Dr. M. S. Miller: It is 3·5 million.

Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman corrects me—it was 3·5 million last year.
That reduction in the number of experiments is very much to be welcomed, but they can never be wiped out. There must always be some experimentation on animals because there is no possible alternative. Although much money is being put into research into viable alternatives, at the end of the day there will always need to be experimentation on animals.
As a result of the Bill, if it passes through the House, there will be an increase in the number of experiments reported in Government statistics because of the different way of collating those statistics. As a result of the further safeguards in the Bill, there will be a need for the inspectorate to be strengthened. I welcome the announcement that apparently six more inspectors are to be appointed fairly soon. Much will rest on the shoulders of the inspectors, who must interpret the intentions laid down in the Bill, with the help of the notes for guidance and the codes of practice.
I represent a constituency in which the employees of four major pharmaceutical companies live and where the chemical industry is an important employer. Some of my constituents work at ICI at Alderley Park, some at Fisons at Holmes Chapel, some for Wellcome at Crewe Hall, and some for Ciba Geigy at Wilmslow. Knowing that the legislation would come before the House, I inspected all of the animal laboratories in which my constituents work. I assure the House that the animals which I saw that are being experimented upon are kept in the most controlled conditions and are extremely well cared for. I praise the young technicians who look after those animals, who have their best interests at heart and who are caring people. Often they get a bad press, and it should be put on the record that they do a splendid job.
I have no hesitation in supporting the Bill wholeheartedly, for the simple reason that it is an eminently reasonable measure which balances the proven

need for continued research to benefit man and animals with the need to have sensible safeguards for the welfare of the animals that are involved in experimentation.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Listening to the debate for four hours has demonstrated to me that it is not a party political issue. In commending the Secretary of State and the Minister on introducing the Bill, may I say that clearly hon. Members on both sides of the House take different views from those prevailing in their parties. Any Bill that can bring into the same camp the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) does a remarkable service to the processes of the House.
I had expected to agree with the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton much more than I did, and in some respects, his speech was counterproductive. He portrayed the failing which in such issues it is difficult to avoid, and that is stating a subjective view as though it was an objective fact. It is extremely difficult to get away from stating what one believes firmly is one's opinion as though it was a scientifically proved fact. I do not believe that any hon. Member would wish to do other than to minimise the experiments that are conducted on animals, and I do not believe that anyone who takes part in the debate has an ulterior motive. It is crucial to accept people's bona fides.
The question to be asked in the debate is, where do we draw the line? I agree with almost all the arguments of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), but I would come to a different conclusion on what the Bill will do and, therefore, what I shall do in the Lobby tonight, if there is a Division.
There is no doubt that a minority of people believe that humans have no right to use any animals for any research. I respect that view. Indeed, many of those people carry their beliefs into what they eat and wear. But it is a minority view, and I reject it, because I cannot accept such an absolute view. It is difficult to sustain logically. For example, although the hon. Member for Leyton opposes hunting for genuine principles, he would allow fishing. We cannot determine whether fish feel pain, any more than we can determine whether any animal feels pain intrinsically. It is impossible to maintain the principle consistently, and it is interesting to note that such differences appeared on both sides of the debate.
There is a hierarchy of response from animals, and sometimes there is a problem, taking the anthromorphic view of the matter, of trying to put oneself in the place of animals to determine the mental consciousness of an animal as though it were a human. It is difficult to do that. However, the difficulty that must be faced—I accept that the Minister and those who introduced the Bill faced it conscientiously—is that, because as humans we have power, we hold the animal world in trust and have a sensitive responsibility to exercise that trust with great care. In some cases, and with strict safeguards, experiments are valid.
The majority of the people interested in animal welfare oppose the Bill. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), who said that the animal welfare lobbies will never be satisfied until all experiments are done away with. My experience from talking to the people who came to give their views on the Bill was that they looked forward to the White Paper and the Bill, hoping that it would improve the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876.


It is their opinion—it is one of which I am persuaded—that although there was a need for further legislation, the Bill has not materially improved that Act with regard to the protection of animals. That is why those people are disappointed with the Bill. They believe that it does not go far enough towards protecting and providing safeguards for animals.
There is one aspect of this matter which goes through all our medicine and our view of it. It is that too much emphasis is placed on curative rather than preventive medicine. All the experiments are to do with cure rather than prevention. If many of the resources that are devoted to cure were devoted to prevention, the need to use animals in experiments would be minimised. Such an approach would be an advantage.
I agree with the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who intervened and took an early bath in this debate. He said that he did not believe that the Bill would reduce the number of experiments. One of the key features is that the Bill fails to stress the need to search for alternatives to animal research. The Bill dodges that point. The nub of the Bill may be where it says that no licence will be given unless no animal can be substituted for the higher animals listed in the clause. If the clause provided that the licence should not be given unless there was no substitute—not necessarily animal—it would have been far more acceptable and would have put the emphasis where it should lie. The Bill does not do that.
We should study the alternatives, some of which have been mentioned. I accept the expertise of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), but there is a contrary view which suggests that more experiments could effectively be done on human tissue.

Mr. Mellor: I should not want the hon. Gentleman to be under any illusions, because when applying for a project licence all applicants will have to declare that they have considered alternatives to the use of live animals and have rejected them on good grounds. There is a new power for us to say that we are not satisfied that the applicants have properly considered the alternatives or we believe that an alternative to the use of live animals exists, and a project licence will not be granted however competent the applicants may otherwise seem to be.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I am grateful to the Minister, but I should like to know whether the view he has expressed will be given the force of law and will be included in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can deal what that point when he replies. That is the crucial point. It is no good saying that that is the intention — there may be a code of conduct—because the Bill does not say that.
A further point about alternatives is important. It has been said by experts that the use of human tissue culture could have predicted the results of thalidomide. That is perhaps something that should be studied carefully. Those who seek alternatives suggest that if we were interested in providing the means for microvascular surgery practice and in perfecting that technique, the use of human placenta, which is usually discarded, could provide an opportunity. The use of quantum pharmacology to predict the harmful effect of drugs could be emphasised more. Some hon. Members have mentioned the possibility of using more computer simulation of the effects of drugs. Those are all matters that could have been made the Bill's main emphasis.
Another objection which has been prayed and which I accept is that the subject of the repetition of experiments has not been spelt out adequately. It is one of the features of the Bill which is less favourable to the protection of animals than the 1876 Act. There is a problem which the Minister will find difficult to redress in Committee if the Bill receives a Second Reading. I refer to cosmetics. Of course cosmetics should be tested if people might suffer disfiguring scars, but whereas the large majority of people would accept the need for animal experimentation to try to find cures for some desperate human illnesses, they would consider that need less imperative when it comes to cosmetics. That should be addressed far more.
I find it repugnant that using animals to test wounding by weapons is not outlawed by the Bill. My noble Friend Lord Airedale moved an amendment to that end in another place on 12 December, but it was not proceeded with and the Minister put the case for continuing with such testing.
This is a desperately emotive subject and hon. Members have rightly put their cases quite emotionally. I would find many aspects of experimentation repugnant, but that is not a basis for legislation. I might not want to benefit from much of the research, but the question is whether I should deny others the benefit of it. It is not possible to take an absolute stance. It is a matter of balance and judgment. My judgment is that the Bill is inadequate. If it receives a Second Reading, I hope that it is substantially amended in Committee, but I doubt it. I have read carefully the Official Report of another place. My noble Friends there proposed 18 amendments, but they were not proceeded with. However strenuously we try to improve the Bill, it will remain defective in many respects, so I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against it.

Mr. Roger Gale: Much earlier in the evening, the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) mentioned an early-day motion, to which an amendment has been tabled. He also mentioned an amendment to the motion before us. At the risk of taking a little of the House's time, I think that it is important to answer some of the questions that have been asked.
I should like, first, to put the early-day motion and the amendment to it on the record. The early-day motion reads:
That this House rejects the Government's Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill as totally inadequate to protect animals from unnecessary experiments that are known to be taking place in British laboratories; and calls for any legislation which replaces the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 to include the following basic minimum requirements: (a) a ban on cosmetic, tobacco and alcohol experiments, (b) a ban on the Draize eye irritancy test, (c) a ban on the L.D.50 poisoning test, (d) a ban on behavioural-psychological experiments, and (e) a ban on warfare experiments and the reconstitution of the Home Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Experimentation, to exclude those who have a vested interest in the continuation of animal experiments.
The amendment, which was tabled in my name and those of members of the all-party parliamentary group for FRAME and others, reads:
this House welcomes the Government's Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [Lords]; congratulates the Home Office on introducing long-overdue legislation that will both meet immediate needs and permit the replacement of all animals used in scientific experiments as this, through research, becomes possible; notes that the Bill had wide all-party support during its passage through the House of Lords and believes that there would be no morality whatsoever in any legislation that led to the unilateral banning, in the United Kingdom, of research which


would then certainly be carried out under less satisfactory controls, and with greater harm to animals, in other parts of the world.
The early-day motion and the amendment epitomise the argument. I doubt whether any hon. Member who has been in the Chamber today does not want an end to all animal experiments. The debate is about how to achieve that end, and how to achieve it worldwide. The hon. Member for Leyton has a sincerely held view. He has tabled an early-day motion, an amendment to the Second Reading motion and introduced a Bill under the 10-minute Bill procedure. However, I believe that he is wrong. I do not share his views.
I respect also the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), even though I do not share all of them.
The motion is based on the demands by Mobilisation for laboratory animals. Mobilisation says:
In our view there can be no ethical justification for exposing any sentient and unconsenting individual to suffering, or risk of suffering, when the only benefit would be to others.
In other words, Mobilisation would ban research completely. In doing so it would ban research, and the results of that research, into cancer, continuing research into Parkinson's disease, research into senile dementia, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), research into AIDS, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and countless other pieces of medical research that are designed to benefit human beings. I believe that these programmes are important.
I shall answer as quickly as I possibly can Mobilisation's queries—I can put it no higher than that —about the Bill. I intend to deal first with cosmetics. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that only one half of 1 per cent. of all animals used in experiments are used in cosmetic experimentation. That figure is correct, but one experiment is one too many if it is unnecessary. Cosmetics are an emotive issue. It is important for the House to understand that we are referring not just to lipstick and eyeshadow. I ran quickly through a shopping list of the kind of cosmetics that a man uses during the course of one day. They include toothpaste, mouthwash, soap, shampoo and conditioner, shaving soap, an antiseptic pencil, perhaps, deodorant, hair dressing, aftershave, detergent and other household goods. All of these products are tested upon animals. To those products can be added the gum on the back of envelopes. That is also a tested product.
Would any hon. Member or any member of the public go to a store and buy a product that was labelled, "This product has not been properly tested"? I discussed this subject with a manufacturer of household goods. He informed me that his company, which I shall not name, had been testing a shampoo on live rabbits three years ago. They did no more than shampoo the rabbits, which in due course gave birth to malformed progeny. It is not altogether surprising that that product development was dropped there and then. I should like to know which right hon. or hon. Member would be prepared to subject his or her children to that kind of untested product.
The thalidomide case is often wrongly quoted. It is said, "But testing did not prevent thalidomide, did it?" No,

it did not, because until the thalidomide case, products were not tested on pregnant mammals. As a result of the thalidomide case, they now are.
The other argument is that there are already enough products on the market. During the last 20 years the cosmetic side of the industry has developed fluoride toothpaste, which in some areas has reduced the incidence of caries by up to 50 per cent. Sunscreens, including those which are incorporated in all National Health Service approved camouflage creams, non-irritant vaginal anti-perspirants, anti-dandruff shampoo and anti-plaque agents are all cosmetic.
I suggest that those products will be developed either in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. I would prefer those products to be developed in this country, under the stringent controls that we apply, rather than elsewhere under less stringent controls. That is why our early-day motion says:
There would be no morality whatsoever in any legislation that led to the unilateral banning in the United Kingdom of research which would then certainly be carried out under less satisfactory controls, and with greater harm to animals, in other parts of the world.
Mobilisation refers to the Draize eye test. Much work has been done on acceptable alternatives, which work is now well advanced. It is likely that the Draize eye test will be obsolete in the foreseeable future. The legislation that is before the House tonight takes account of that. As and when the Draize eye test becomes fully obsolete, the Secretary of State will be able to introduce regulations against it.
Many of the potential causes of eye injury are now determined from databank information. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) asked why more databank information could not be used. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made available a sum of money through FRAME in the middle of last year to establish three programmes, one of which was to set up a databank for exactly that purpose, to obviate yet more unnecessary animal experiments. The doses used in the Draize eye test were chosen to produce mild responses. I have given one of the results produced from experimentation with shampoo.
Another argument used is that there are products on the market that have not been tested on animals. But are there? We do not usually produce exhibits in the House, but I have to do so in order to read the label. It is a product labelled, "Peach conditioning Cream Shampoo, Pure plant products." On the cap is a red sticker which says, "Produced without cruelty to animals." If analysed, the product would, I believe, be found to contain amine alkyl sulphate, which is a synthetic surfactant material, ethylene glycol monosterate, and ethylene glycol distearate. These ingredients are not of pure plant origin, and they have been tested on animals.
I am sure that the manufacturers of that shampoo made their claim in good faith but that the shampoo itself has not been tested on live animals. I do not know of a product containing detergent that has not at some point been tested on live animals, and I challenge anybody on the Government or on the Opposition Benches to produce such a product. There is an organisation called Beauty without Cruelty which claims to be able to purvey such products. I would like to see one, and I would have the product analysed to find out what was in it. I have given the House the results of one such analysis.


The LD50 test has also been mentioned. Should we ban the LD50 test, or the LD49, or the LD48, or should we ban toxicity testing altogether? In asking for a ban on the LD50 test, that is what one is asking for. Hon. Members have mentioned the difference between drugs and cosmetics, and some hon. Members have sought to distinguish between the rightness and wrongness of experimenting for the purpose of creating life saving drugs and for the purpose of creating cosmetics.

Sir Dudley Smith: I am listening with great interest to what my hon. Friend is saying, and I support what he says. Is he aware that over the years a number of pharmaceutical researchers have discovered excellent drugs which had the potential to be great lifesavers, but because of their toxicity they had to be abandoned, and the only possible way they could be tested was by animal experimentation?

Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend is right about drugs and what he says also applies to household goods and ordinary cosmetics. If toxic, an ordinary lipstick left around the house could be eaten by a child. At present there are no adequate test tube toxicity tests. Organisations like the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, Mobilisation and other organisations are working towards that end.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare has proposed that
A project licence shall not be granted for the purpose of ascertaining the lethal dose which kills 50 per cent. (or some other percentage) of the subject animals.
In effect, that means no toxicity testing. It is generally accepted that the traditional LD50 test is of some value. I had a meeting with representatives of Mobilisation last week. Significantly, no amendment to this portion of the Bill was introduced in another place, and that could well be because one is difficult to devise. I have asked Mobilisation if it can draft an amendment for the Committee stage of the Bill. If it does so, I would like to consider it carefully. The Minister has considered every other submission very carefully and I do not doubt that he would be equally prepared to consider such an amendment.
If Mobilisation does that, it will have to take into account a number of regulations. Article 2 of Council directive 76/768/EEC, and regulation 5 of the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1984 provide that cosmetic products, which include toiletries, protective and decorative cosmetics and perfumes, put on the market within the EEC must not be liable to cause damage to human health when applied under normal conditions of use. Directives 78/45/EEC and 85/374/EEC say the same, and directive 79/831/EEC requires producers to test all new substances. One can add to that list regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and those of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the World Health Organisation and various other bodies. Before Mobilisation comes up with an amendment, it will have to satisfy all those national and international regulations.
Behavioural and psychological experiments have been mentioned. The International Fund for Animal Welfare says:
A project licence should not be granted for behavioural studies designed to reveal information not for use in the treatment of disease in human beings

The fund at least recognises some uses; for example, in the development of treatment for schizophrenia, for geriatric medicine, and for senile dementia, but it does not recognise the potential use in animal medicine.
Many hon. Members have expressed worry about aversion stimuli, deprivation and aggression tests. We recognise that there is a need for reform in that area, but the nature of the Bill allows us to study that and allows the Secretary of State to legislate thereafter.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington referred to warfare experiments. I have visited Porton Down, and I saw many of the experiments taking place there. Between 1980 and 1984 a total of 190 animals were used in wounding experiments. I know of no beagles being used at Porton Down. I know of beagles that are bred there and supplied to the DHSS for drug testing.
As far as I am aware, no weapons testing of any kind is carried out at Porton Down. I and those who came with me to view the establishment were given as free a run of the place as may be had outside sterile laboratory conditions, and when we were not able to enter premises we were, wherever possible, able to view the laboratories through windows. While I and, no doubt, many other hon. Members do not like this aspect of the work, the research carried out on behalf of our armed forces is every bit as legitimate medical research as is any other programme carried out in any laboratory in this or any other country.
Mobilisation says that the Home Secretary's advisory committee should comprise:
Persons who, whilst having knowledge of the subject … have no vested interest whatsoever in the use of animals for research purposes … Only if the committee is constituted fairly will there be any chance of reasonable recommendations being made for the benefit of laboratory animals".
Fair composition? That would rule out Dr. Michael Balls, the chairman of the trustees of FRAME, who has contributed so much to the Bill, but who, like most medical practitioners, has carried out animal experimentation. Is it right that people with experience should be excluded from serving on the committee? That is exactly the sort of person that we need on the committee.
No Bill is perfect, and amendments will be tabled to this measure. Mobilisation says:
After strong representation from animal rights groups the Government now proposes to forbid the re-use of animals … however, the issue of re-use may well re-surface because of strong pro-vivisection interests".
I shall not propose an amendment to permit the re-use of animals, but I should like to know why Mobilisation, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point or anyone else wishes to condemn yet more animals to death when some could be re-used and thus save others. Perhaps when they have thought about that, they, rather than I, might like to table an amendment.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) and others who have referred to the fact that a project licence will not be granted unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that full consideration has been given to all the alternatives, and that the use of animals is the only viable way to achieve the necessary purpose. I hope and believe that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that, and accept an amendment to the Bill.
FRAME seeks alternatives that will obviate the need for all animal experiments world wide. In the interim, the Bill will result in the immediate strengthening of the controls, as all use of laboratory animals will have to be justified.


It will provide a basis for continuing reform in the years to come, without the need for further legislation. That is why, in the early-day motion, we say that this is a Bill that
will both meet immediate needs and permit the replacement of all animals used in scientific experiments as this, through research, becomes possible".
That is why, together with the British Veterinary Association, the Committee for the reform of Animal Experimentation and now hon. Members of all parties in the other place, we wholeheartedly support the Bill.

Mr. Steve Norris: It has been said by several hon. Members on both sides of the House that the real test of the efficacy of the Bill is whether fewer animals are used after its passage than are used now, and whether those animals that are used are not caused unnecessary suffering.
I have listened with interest to what has so far been a patchy debate. At the end of it, I cannot help being immensely disappointed that after 100 years absence of any reform of the 1876 Act, we are still disputing whether the Bill will reduce the number of experiments. There has been a statement by the director of the Research Defence Society that he cannot think of one experiment that is permitted before the Bill that will not be permitted after it has become law. That is challengeable, but it is regrettable that, having got this far, and with such a great delay since the last substantive legislation, we are still arguing whether there will be a material difference in the number of animals experimented on.
I cannot think of any other endeavour where so little progress would be so widely accepted in the extraordinary bipartisan atmosphere that we have seen tonight. I trust that hon. Members will accept that some of the reservations about the Bill are equally felt on both sides of the House. We have had some distinguished speeches, particularly that from my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), bearing this out. I am disappointed and frustrated that some exceptionally cruel and disgusting tests have been used in animal experimentation that, from all the evidence that a lay person can adduce, no longer even retain any scientific credibility, but the Bill will permit at least their technical continuance.
FRAME has been quoted often this evening, and I have the greatest possible respect for it. It has said of the Draize eye test—rather contrary to what the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) implied, although I would not seek to contradict him as he is a doctor—that it is not the case that culture and other tests are always necessarily less effective and useful than those performed on animals. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there must be a certain number of experiments, at least at this stage of development, that must be performed on animals. I hope that we avoid the assumption that any of us that speak expecting rather more of the Bill than we have got, would necessarily have bought the whole anti-vivisectionist mobilisation bandwagon, because we have not.
FRAME has said:
There is no need for animals to be exposed to chemicals likely to cause severe reactions … Within the foreseeable future, the Draize eye irritancy test will be discontinued since it will have become unnecessary.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I agree with that comment. FRAME is a worthwhile organisation. The hon. Member for Oxford, east (Mr. Norris) criticises the Bill. My opinion was clear. I said that we should ensure that human beings are not at risk. The Bill is not intended to do what the hon. Gentleman says that it should do. The Bill is not called the "Animal Welfare Bill".

Mr. Norris: There is a difference between the view which the hon. Gentleman expressed in his speech, to which I listened with interest, and the views which all hon. Members have expressed, whether in favour of or against the proposals. None of us suggests that human values should be set aside while we consider animal welfare.
My argument is that outmoded and scientifically unsupportable tests have no impact upon medical science for human beings. They are discredited tests. FRAME, which is highly respected and has views which are not to be set aside, says that the Draize eye test will be discontinued since it has become unnecessary.
That test will be discontinued more speedily if the Bill contains a prohibition. I can extend that argument to the LD50 test. FRAME states:
The classical or formal LD50 procedure is now widely regarded by toxicologists as unscientific and unnecessarily wasteful of animal lives.
That cannot be more clear. FRAME continues:
This is another area where progress in the development of alternatives can be expected.
Most of us would agree that that is desirable.
There is the greatest possible difference between drawing, in a technical sense, a distinction between lethal dosage and therapeutic dosage in relation to cancer drugs and the testing which I, as an instinctive vivisectionist, recognise is necessary in this vital research. However, does that mean conducting tests which deliberately require the death of a proportion of the subject animals for no better reason than that that is contained in the small print of the LD50 test?

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend is being analytical. The difference is not as great as he suggests. The Bill will permit the Secretary of State, through the inspectorate and such other authorities as he might wish to call upon, to take an individual view on the merits of each application. We cannot say now that there will never be a need to test a substance on an animal's eye. We can say that there are ways of operating the Draize test which cause the minimum of suffering which should be employed in every case. The advanced work on non-animal alternatives means that in a few years we shall not need the Draize test. The purpose of the project licence is that when that time comes the Draize test will not be permitted because the project licence allows for best practice to become common practice.
The LD50 test is a whole package of tests, and it is the crude LD50 test to which we and my hon. Friend object. That will not be permitted under the project licence mechanism, other than in an exceptional case where it really is necessary to know the classic LD50 rating. Again, because it is a complicated area and no one can say at this stage of the game that we do not need to know the toxicity ratings of certain substances — for example, agrochemicals where any amount might be ingested by a farm labourer during his work, or cancer drugs — it would be contrary to the public interest to say, "Stop the


LD50 test." It is better to say, "Let us purge it gradually out of the system by taking a proper, careful, balanced, individual view on the merits of each test."

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention.
I had hoped that I would make only a few short remarks. I want to deal with the defence that has been adumbrated on previous occasions, that the discretion given to the Minister to approve each individual experiment overtakes the desirability of banning certain of the outmoded tests.
I understand and have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's argument. In a great many cases, the procedure will prove invaluable. I wish to take this opportunity to join in what is not a chorus, but a genuine concert of congratulation to my hon. Friend for what he has managed to achieve. Those of us who may feel frustration at so little progress after a century of neglect, in no sense direct that frustration at him.
On the crude LD50 test, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) suggested that the wording of his amendment to the early-day motion referred to the almost immorality of banning LD50 in this country but permitting it to occur overseas. The theme of his remarks was that it would be immoral for us to ban the LD50 test — even though it has been wholly scientifically discredited — because all we would do would be to export the problem. That is a superficially attractive argument and logic, but no more than that. My hon. Friend suggests that we would make no progress in the standards on animal experimentation until the standards adopted by the least tolerable of our European partners were to match our own. Surely what we in the United Kingdom would be doing was setting exemplary standards and then requiring our European partners to adopt them. That might be one useful way in which the Community, for once in its incessant clamour for harmonisation, might be useful.

Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend is well aware of my belief that if experiments are to be carried out at all, they are better carried out under regulations in this country than elsewhere. The real objective that we all pursue is the obviation of all animal experiments by the provision of alternatives. Until those alternatives are available, I believe—as I know he believes—that it is better to have the experiments carried out here than anywhere else.

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend must not put words into my mouth. He is saying exactly what I am not saying. It is not an adequate line of logic to say that because the experiments might be carried out in other countries if they were not carried out here, we should continue to carry them out because we are the good guys and we cannot export the moral dilemma and thus rid ourselves of it. I do not seek to rid myself of the moral dilemma at the expense of a third party. I am merely suggesting that, unfortunately, the logic of that argument is that we do nothing until everybody else's standards begin to approach our own. That is not acceptable to me. We should be prepared to be exemplary, to be first and to be the best. That is the way in which in the long term we shall achieve significant progress.
I am similarly disappointed that we cannot go further on research into tobacco and alcohol addiction. Those are linked by the fact that they are self-induced conditions. I hope that I shall not fall into the trap of suggesting some

sort of moral opprobrium, but I defy a medical expert to prove to me that significant areas remain to be investigated which have not already been flogged to death.
Surely the same goes for experiments into cosmetics. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North makes much of the fact that he has a bottle of shampoo that is said not to be harmful to animals but in fact contains all sorts of things which sound as though I would expect to find them in my antifreeze. That is a plausible line, but it does not run contrary to the line that I would prefer to take.
Those of us who are concerned about unnecessary experimentation are simply saying—to put it as crudely and straightforwardly as it strikes me—that we surely have enough lipsticks, creams and unguents to cover the medico-social reasons for cosmetics for disfigurations mentioned by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller).
We cannot honestly say that we need more research to test yet more products. I hope that it does not sound too heretical coming from the Conservative Benches to say that we are simply offering companies a range of products from which to make money. Let them make money by producing products from ingredients that have already been tested and on which there need be no further unnecessary testing.

Sir Dudley Smith: Will my hon. Friend extend that to household products such as oven cleaners and other items which are potentially lethal where new discoveries are being made all the time to improve the running of households? Surely they all need to be tested.

Mr. Norris: I am not persuaded. I accept that that is an extremely unpopular and non-intellectual view. No doubt I am missing some tremendously powerful stream of logic which so far defeated me, and I apologise for that. But I do not put a new improved oven cleaner stick before the desirability of abolishing one area of animal experimentation. Is that so awful? I do not know. Perhaps it is. However, there must he a point, which I suspect most people recognise, at which we say that we have gone far enough and we have the appliances that we need. Without some major area of new endeavour we have gone far enough. There is no justification for continued experimentation.
Finally, let me say that it has been said by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that none of these bans are necessary because the Secretary of State has been given power to control each experiment and experimenter. However, we in our legislation have never told a Secretary of State that he knows roughly what we want, outlined the general principle and left it to him to get on with the business of interpreting that. We are not prepared to make such an assumption in other legislation as far as I can gather from my limited experience. Rather, it is the tradition of the House to dot as many i's and cross as many t's as possible and that we reserve to Secretaries of State, however, distinguished they may be—and this one is as distinguished, if not more so, than his colleagues—only those matters which have to be determined on discretion at the time. That is not necessarily the case in every experiment to be covered by the Bill.
May I just say finally—

Mr. Tony Baldry: My grandmother died at the early age of 36. For a number of years, my father was research secretary to the British Tuberculosis Association.


I suspect that he and his contemporaries would not have discovered a cure for TB if they had not been able to experiment on animals. I suspect that they would not have been able to find a cure for TB if they had been forced to dot every i and cross every t. A balance must be struck. Does my hon. Friend not feel that the Bill strikes the best balance to ensure that the grandmothers of other people do not die at the early age of 36?

Mr. Norris: Both my maternal grandparents died from the same condition. I think that every hon. Member appreciates the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). However, if he had followed what I was saying, he would have known that I was talking about the Draize and LD50 tests, cosmetic and kitchen equipment experiments and experiments concerned with tobacco, alcohol, and so on. I was not referring to the sort of experiments about which my hon. Friend speaks. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to make that clear. I am sure that there is great agreement on both sides of the House on that point.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Norris: I should prefer to finish my speech. I have said "finally" several times and, each time, I have been greeted by greater cheers from the Opposition. If I may say "finally" again — [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."] —through the chorus of approval, if we have the technology to dispense with unnecessary suffering and can demonstrate that alternatives are available, let us be prepared to do so in a straightforward declaratory way in the Bill and to demonstrate our desire to move a century forward in alleviating distress to animals. That should be our aim.

Mr. David Amess: It is often said that Britain is a nation of animal lovers, yet one has only to consider this debate to see that there are great differences in the definitions of "animal lovers". In Basildon, which I represent, people are concerned about animal protection. However, locally and nationally, one need only go to a dog pound to realise that there is much abuse of animals. That point was emphasised by the figures released today by the RSPCA. Over the years I have kept animals of all kinds, although parliamentary commitments at present limit me to goldfish and doves.
Some people maintain that they prefer animals to people because animals do not answer back. This is at the heart of the issue in assessing the rights of animals commonly referred to as "dumb", although many people would dispute that. Where do we draw the line on the right of human beings to exert their ascendancy over animals?
The groups that seek to safeguard the welfare of animals are increasing in number and fervour. I found them to be an articulate and persuasive lobby during the general election campaign. Most such groups adopt a sensible and constructive approach. However, I utterly condemn those animal welfare groups that use violence to achieve their ends, whether through poisoning food, breaking into laboratories or placing bombs in busy department stores. Such activities have no place in a democratic society. They will not meet with success. They give the animal welfare movement a thoroughly bad name.

Reference was made in the debate on this issue in another place to the so-called animal rights extremists who committed violent assaults against laboratories and scientists. The words of Sir William Paton were quoted. He said that they are mostly of the healthiest generation that this country has ever seen because of past medical research.
Tonight we are debating the principle behind the Bill first introduced into the other place. As I understand it, the Bill seeks to strengthen the protection for animals used in experiments, which is something that I certainly applaud. It is a pity that some people have sought to rubbish the Bill without giving it a fair chance, particularly the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). I think that the Government should be congratulated on having the courage to amend a piece of legislation dealing with animal welfare which has been in existence for 109 years. It is always an emotive subject.
Of course the Bill is not perfect, but then what is? The House of Lords has again demonstrated its worth as a second Chamber by introducing sensible amendments to the Bill. I know that the RSPCA would also like to make some changes to the Bill. However, as the British Veterinary Association, the campaign for the Reform of Animal Experimentation and FRAME have all expressed the view that the Bill represents the effective compromise between the welfare needs of animals, the legitimate demands of the public for accountability and the equally legitimate requirements of medicine, science and commerce. While recognising that there is justifiable public concern over many aspects of laboratory animal use, their view is that the legislation would provide a basis for ensuring that all areas of animal experimentation were effectively controlled.
I particularly welcome the central feature of the Bill — the proposal for a dual licence system. This new system will surely act as a double check against abuse of animal experimentation. I also welcome the fact the requirement of a project licence will mean that the pain, distress and discomfort of the animal will be minimised. For the first time, the likely adverse affects for animals will be weighed against the likely benefit to man or other animals.
I also welcome the fact that for the first time it is proposed that establishments for the breeding and supplying of animals will come under statutory control, so there will be no question of unwanted or stolen pets being used, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said. The requirement under current law to kill all animals which have been allowed to recover from anaesthesia once the experiment is over will also end with the Bill.
In the light of the new legislation, it makes sense to set up an animal procedures committee to advise the Home Secretary on matters of policy and practice, including individual cases referred to it. However, I hope that the Committee will be allowed to use its initiative to press for reductions in animal suffering and usage. I also hope that protection for members of that committee against criminal proceedings for disclosure of other than commercially sensitive material will be given.
I wish that it was not necessary to have any experimentation on animals. I accept the view which is genuinely held by some people, certainly by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), that there is no end which can justify experiments on animals. In fact, some


people would rather die themselves. However, I believe that the vast majority of people believe that the end does justify the means, certainly for finding cures for terminal illnesses.

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman outlines a view which is not mine. My view is that there are a vast number of unnecessary experiments that should be stopped. We should be looking for alternatives. Certainly the burden of proof to show that experiments are necessary should be shifted to those who want to conduct animal experiments.

Mr. Amess: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for misinterpreting his view. However, he spoke for rather a long time and I was probably lulled into a false sense of security on that point.
All hon. Members will have received a letter from the United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research and surely could not fail to be impressed by its achievements over the past 25 years in improving the survival chances of thousands of cancer sufferers. Children with acute leukaemia or Hodgkins disease have been helped, and lung cancer has been prevented. In Britain alone, cancer counts for one in five of all deaths.
There can be few hon. Members who have not lost someone through cancer, a disease which usually results in the victim losing his very self-respect. We would all wish to find a lasting cure for that terrible disease, yet we are reliably informed that almost all the significant advances in the control of cancer have at some point required experiments including animals—surely a most persuasive argument.
Having received so many cards from constituents about the Draize eye irritancy test, I am encouraged by FRAME's view—although I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) argued the point — that within the foreseeable future the test will be discontinued as it will have become unnecessary. I hope that animal protectionists will welcome the widening of the pain concept to that of severity, and the statutory control of it.
I look forward very much to the day when we no longer have to use animals for scientific purposes, but until then the goal of reducing the number of animals used, minimising the suffering caused to them and replacing them with alternatives wherever possible, and as quickly as possible. can best be served by supporting the Bill.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I, too, welcome the Bill. It is long overdue that we update the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 to ensure more humane treatment of laboratory animals in scientific and industrial research. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), I have a large postbag. I imagine that most hon. Members have a larger postbag on this subject throughout the year than on any other single subject. The public support reform, and reform is before the House today.
Furthermore, the Bill is a further fulfilment of the Conservative party manifesto, as pledged in 1983, following two White Papers, in May 1983 and May 1985. After 110 years, although there has been updating by some regulations, there is a need for a new Act. We have a duty to modernise and strengthen the protection given to animals.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the Bill strikes a balance between the welfare of animals and the scientific search for genuine solutions to medical problems, all within the umbrella of public accountability.
Animals have helped the fight against disease. For example, childhood deaths from diphtheria have fallen to almost nil from about 800 per million at the turn of the century, as a result of the vaccine. Polio has been mentioned, as well as tuberculosis, and the worldwide eradication of smallpox. Animal diseases have not been mentioned frequently in the debate. Advances have been made in the control of anthrax, canine distemper and foot and mouth disease. Medical advances have been made through animal experimentation.
For the future, controlled reseach on animals may give the much-needed breakthrough for multiple sclerosis arthritis and cancer. Animal experimentation is still required to fight death and disease. However, I am pleased that the number of experiments has fallen in each of the past eight years. The number commenced in 1984 was almost 2 million less than in 1976 and the lowest since 1959. That follows the ability by researchers to adapt their methods so that fewer animals are required. Furthermore, alternative methods have been developed, particularly in the early screening stages of testing new compounds. The culture of cells and tissue in vitra and mathematicl modelling using computers are two such alternatives.
I welcome the Government's decision to support alternatives by a grant to the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. That principle is right. However, the sum of £150,000 is paltry. In view of the importance of that work, I hope that a minimum sum of £1 million annually can be allocated.
My major worry about the Bill is the extent to which it will permit experiments to continue related to tobacco, alcohol and cosmetics. It is appalling to contemplate that animals are subject to vile abuse to check on products sold to promote human vanity. Why should conscious rabbits continue to have noxious substances dripped into their eyes before the sale of a new shampoo or hairspray? The Draize eye test—a method for evaluating irritancy to the eye—is inaccurate. Alternative methods of testing with cultures give equal, if not better, results. I hope that the Committee will examine whether such tests are still required.
Experiments on animals should be legalised only where no alternatives exist and there is a defined medical purpose. The cosmetics, toiletry and perfumery industries should use human volunteers.
Let us consider alcohol and smoking-related experiments. The rationale for conducting experiments in animals using alcohol is that, ultimately, it will help the alcohol-damaged or alcohol-addicted patient. Hence any suggestion that such research be curtailed is strongly resisted. However, what are we to make of studies into the effects of alcohol on aggression in mice, especially when the mice are confined in narrow tubes and will bite a piece of metal in front of them, or the effects of alcohol on the time that mice spend running round or keeping still? Rats can be made alcohol-dependent by introducing it into their food or drink, and, when alcohol is withdrawn, they become prone to convulsions. Mice from different strains have different preferences for alcohol, but those preferences change when they are made to drink alcohol


solutions over a period of time. Rats may have substances introduced directly into the brain to see what effect that has on their alcohol preference.
Alcoholism in the United Kingdom is a serious problem, but, while facilities for detoxification and rehabilitation are still underfunded, the validity and utility of the animal studies described cannot hope to command public confidence.
Tobacco research in animals is an emotive subject, suggesting forced inhalation of tobacco smoke. Such experiments continue, mostly if not exclusively, in rodents to study the effects of smoke on the respiratory tract. Less well known is the expanding research on the nature of smoking addiction. That is now recognised to be largely due to the pharmacological effects of nicotine within the central nervous system. The idea of restricting such research has been forcibly contested because, it is claimed, it is so important for the help that it can give to smokers in giving up. The pharmacology of nicotine has become an "interesting" study in its own right. Funded largely by the Medical Research Council, workers are studying receptors in the rat brain: how they interact with nicotine, the effect this has on behaviour, and how in turn other drugs affect the interactions.
Nowhere is there an explanation of how elucidation of these central mechanisms is likely to help smokers to combat the habit. In experimental rats, the procedures include the implantation of brain electrodes, maze running, food deprivation— so that they will press a lever to get a food reward—the induction of stress, conditioned taste aversion, or learning to dislike a taste through associating it with feeling ill or nauseous, direct injections of nicotine into the brain and, of course, multiple injections of other drugs at various sites to see how this affects their response to nicotine.
While the tobacco industry spends £100 million a year on promotion, and while health education and anti-smoking clinics have inadequate funding, one is not impressed by the essential or directly helpful nature of experimental work in rats.
The regulatory framework proposed is a tighter system of control involving project licensing and personal licensing of competence with the approval of the Home Secretary. That dual system of licensing is welcome provided that, first, the research is in the public interest and, secondly, that there is no alternative method and the Home Secretary's staff is adequate.
When he replies will my hon. Friend say whether the present team of 15 inspectors can supervise experiments with 3·5 million animals? I ask him to increase the establishment to a realistic level in the light of the Bill. That should be in respect of the animals and their source. There is public anxiety about the disappearance of unwarranted or stolen pets to be used as laboratory animals. Inspectors will have to be fully assured that all laboratories use animals that have come from sources defined in the Bill.
The inspectorate's work will be made that much easier if licences are granted only if the applicant is adequately qualified and has a demonstrable skill in the techniques he or she wishes to carry out. That point was dealt with adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). The training schemes which are at present voluntary are missing from the Bill. With no

official incentive, companies and universities will not train their staff. Will my hon. Friend the Minister commit the Government to establishing new training schemes?
That will be all the more necessary as the powers and duties of the persons named as being responsible for the daily care and well-being of the animals are unclear. Such a person in authority must be available at all times. That element is missing from the Bill.
I give a cautious welcome to this reform of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. It is very much a curate's egg. It is an effective attempt to meet the scientific and technological advances of the 110 years since that Act. The Bill may not go as far as many hon. Members wish and I hope that it will be extended in Committee.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary most warmly on his great skill and success in steering the Bill so far. I wish him all success in steering it onto the statute book. I am a strong advocate of medical research and an officer of the all-party group on the chemical industry, and I strongly support the Bill.
We can all take pride in the Government's record. Every year since they came to office in 1979 the number of animal experiments has fallen. I hope that my hon. Friend will take my interventions and my comments as constructive. I thoroughly welcome the Bill.
In balancing the needs of man and the welfare of animals we should bear in mind the fact that 10 per cent. of farm animals die in the first month of their life. It has been said that 250,000 children's lives have been saved in the past 50 years through drug research related to animal experiments.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has just made an interesting point about the number of lives saved through animal research. Will he tell the House how that information has been drawn together and what proof there is to support it?

Mr. Thurnham: The information was on a video that I watched this morning in which Sir Douglas Black was commenting. The video is entitled "What About People" and is produced by the Research Defence Society. I will supply the hon. Gentleman with the video if he wants any further information. I refer him to Sir Douglas Black's comments which I do not wish to dispute.
I wish to make some points about the Draize, cosmetic and LD50 tests. The number of Draize tests has fallen to 7,800. That is a substantial reduction and shows the extent to which the test can be reduced. I should like to thank my hon. Friend for his letter of September last year in which he said:
We would very much like to see the ending of the Draize eye test as soon as possible
and that he had ordered a survey of all such tests performed here. He wrote again in December about cosmetics tests and the LD50 test. He said that there had been a "dramatic reduction" of cosmetics tests from 30,500 in 1979 to 17,500 in 1984. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) should note that cosmetics include all substances applied to the skin. If they want to continue research on medicines but not on cosmetics, they should remember that the skin is the largest organ of the body. They would therefore seem to advocate research in regard to all but the largest organ.
As for LD50, my hon. Friend the Minister said:
You may be assured that we will continue to monitor these tests closely".
Why do we have no numbers? I am worried that we are unable to establish the number of LD50 tests. The advisory committee report of 1979 said that 41 per cent. of acute toxicity tests were LD50 tests and that that was only an approximate figure and subject to a substantial margin of error. Is my hon. Friend able to give any idea of the number of LD50 tests being carried out? I estimate that they exceed 100,000 a year. Far fewer cosmetic and Draize tests are conducted.
National statistics for toxicity tests show that they are increasing as a proportion. Acute toxicity tests represented 9·9 per cent. of all tests in 1978, whereas they represent 11·3 per cent. in 1984. In view of what has been said about the reduced need for the LD50 test, how much reliance can we put on my hon. Friend's assurance that the matter would be "closely monitored" when we do not have any numbers and when such a large area of testing is involved?
Emotions do not seem to be running as high now as they did in 1907 when the "Brown Dog" statue was erected in Battersea Park. I am interested in those parts of the Bill which relate to embryos and foetuses. We have had a great deal of controversy relating to human embryos, and I know that the Bill provides protection for the developing embryo or foetus only after half of the gestation period, unless the Secretary of State decides otherwise. Medical scientists want to carry out embryo research to minimise the number of children born with severe congenital handicap. Some such research can be carried out only by using human embryos, but other research can use other animals such as mice. Unfortunately, the male mouse's semen can be obtained only by killing it. Fortunately, no such restrictions apply to human beings. I wonder how my hon. Friend the Minister would balance the value of a mouse's life against a pre-fourteen day human embryo.
Perhaps that is an example of the value of the Bill, in which so much is rightly left to the discretion of future Home Secretaries. That is a feature of the Bill which I hope is not lost. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent work presenting the Bill and commend it fully to the House.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I start with something approaching a declaration of interest. As many hon. Members will know, I am a Privy Council appointed member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. In that capacity, I have a non-pecuniary interest in the subject of the Bill.
There is an absolute stance. It is that, as a Labour friend of aphids, or whatever, one must not destroy life. We must try by all means preserve life. It is interesting that not one right hon. or hon. Member has adopted an absolutist position.
In his very interesting speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr, Cohen) said that at that point one does not damage life. I do not accept the point at which my hon. Friend says that one should not carry out experiments, but I fully appreciate that, in his terms, he holds a proper and correct view of life when he draws that line. Although, therefore, we may disagree, there will be no hassle between us. I have a brother who is dying of cancer, so I am a little reluctant to reduce the opportunities for medical research. If it means that the odd rat, cat or

dog gets mischief done to it, so be it. But that is a highly subjective, temporary and personal position. I trust that my hon. Friend will not find it difficult to understand why I cannot follow him all the way.
The Bill would transfer control over experimentation to a Home Office inspectorate. That is the first difficulty. The number of qualified vets and medical practitioners who man the inspectorate and who can be inspected by it amount to fewer than 200. We run the risk of creating a highly incestuous group. Those who grant the licences know and are friendly with those to whom the licences are granted. This causes me to hesitate—I put it no higher than that—because it means that the policeman is part of the poacher gang.
I give notice to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department that that point will be examined very carefully in Committee. We shall try to ensure that an effective. arm's length relationship is established between the licensing authority — the inspectorate — and the licensees. Many of my hon. Friends and I are not satisfied that that relationship is adequately dealt with in the Bill. A group of 15 or 20 inspectors are well known to all the major laboratories and universities. They are wholly honourable men, but they will issue the licences and also supervise both the project licences and the personal licences. That will not secure the public interest. More than that is required. We shall seek in Committee to find a more certain method of enabling the public interest to be secured, particularly over project licensing. We must be assured that projects in which animals will be subjected to severe, less severe or moderate procedures are not in the hands of cosy, in-house relationships. It must be subject to external vetting—I am sorry, that is a terrible pun. It must be under the control of a body that is not in-house. What worries me about laboratory animal veterinary work is that it is in-house with a small number of vets and medical people. I give notice to the Under-Secretary that when we get to Committee we shall look at that.
I see no reason, in terms of the protection of animals, why Crown immunity should remain in the Bill. If experiments are taking place at Porton down or at any other Ministry of Defence establishment, and if procedures are required at pathological laboratories under the control and within the premises of the Home Office rather than local government, I see no reason why animals subjected to laboratory experiments in those establishments should not have the same licensing procedure for their welfare. A rat owned by the Ministry of Defence should not be subjected to more heinous treatment than one in a university or a chemical laboratory. In committee I and my colleagues will seek major modifications to the Bill in that area. I see no case for Crown immunity on animal welfare. The inspectors are already covered by the Official Secrets Act and there is therefore no difficulty on that score.
I and my hon. Friends on the Committee will need a great deal of persuading that Crown immunity should not be waived for the welfare of laboratory animals. If we do nasty things for chemical warfare purposes, at least let the rats or the chimpanzees or whatever be decently treated. I may not like what we are doing, but I want to make sure the animals are properly looked after.
I must now say why I will not go along with the opposition expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton. The notes of guidance and other things we can do in Committee will provide 98 per cent. of what my hon.


Friend seeks in the reasoned amendment that he has placed before the House. I advise my hon. Friend that I will not vote for that reasoned amendment if it is called. There is a perfectly honourable difference of opinion between us.
That is not the case in my relationship with the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). In all my 15 years in the House, I have never read a piece of more egregious crap than his amendment. If the House passed that, it should be ashamed of itself.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): As someone said, follow that!
After 110 years, the House deserved today's debate, and the introduction of new legislation to control scientific work on animals is a momentous event. I feel a particular pride and pleasure in commending the Bill to the House, for three reasons.
First, in common with many other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I have for many years—certainly since before I took up my present responsibilities —taken an active interest in the protection and welfare of animals. Secondly, as the Home Office Minister responsible for the subject over the past three years, I have made this project one of my principal tasks. Thirdly, I know how much hard work has gone into getting the right balance in the Bill. I believe that it is a good Bill and that its structure and framework will serve us well and help animals for many years to come.
It is not surprising that opinions on the details have differed, and I look forward to the Committee stage and the opportunity to come to grips with those matters, but it is significant that there has been a large measure of agreement on both sides of the House about the importance of the topic and the need to make progress.
I am particularly glad to have this opportunity, as one of the first debates in which I participated in the House was the discussion on the attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) to change the law on animal experiments, which failed, but put down a marker which a number of hon. Members have pursued over the years. I remember that when the then Minister of State, Home Office, now my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, replied to the debate, I urged him to get on with it, little thinking that I was shaking my fist at fate and that I would be the one who would have to get on with it.
We have seen some useful advances in animal welfare over the past three years, including the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), strongly backed by the Government, to ban the sale of pets in open street markets, the Bill to make it easier to prosecute those involved in the disgusting sport of badger baiting, and the grant for research into alternatives which the Government made to FRAME. We are the first Government ever to make such a grant. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) thought that our grant was stingy, but he was obviously brought up in the Ken Livingstone school of grant giving, and we can never hope to match that. The sum is certainly less than Ken Livingstone has given to some less notable causes.
I note what my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) said about the grant, but I urge on him the need

not merely to think of a figure that sounds rather grand and to say, "£l million is the right figure." We gave FRAME £150,000 because that is what it asked for to do the work that needed to be done. I am sure that that is the right basis on which to fund research.
I particularly thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) for a distinguished contribution, making a number of significant points. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, because I know that before he took on Front-Bench responsibilities, and during his first period in the House, no one fought harder to make advances in animal welfare. It is a subject about which he is concerned, and he strove with great success to strike a balance.
Because the hon. Gentleman is advised by many of the people who have advised me, he knows how much work has gone into the Bill and how many people, such as Clive Hollands and others, have done so much to advance the cause of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Erdington also made it clear that there were a number of points to be examined in Committee. I agree with him on several of those points, particularly about the animal procedures committee. I stress that I see this as a different organisation from the Secretary of State's advisory committee, which was an in-house committee which did valuable work. We are giving the animal procedures committee a separate statutory existence, with the aim that it should be an independent body, with distinguished members drawn from the scientific, medical, and animal welfare sectors.
I am delighted at the increase in the number of distinguished animal welfare campaigners who have gone on to the committee in my time in the Home Office. They will become members of the animal procedures committee. I hope that that committee, under an independent chairman, will take an independent stand and look into matters into which it wants to look, and not just into matters that are referred to it by the Home Secretary. I hope, too, that it will fulfil the watchdog role, but as a watchdog that knows from experience what this sophisticated arrangement is about. I look forward to responding positively on a whole range of issues in Committee, as we have got into the habit of doing.
I commend what the hon. Gentleman said, because I know the pressures which he and the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) come under from those who are opposed to all animal experiments, and in particular what he said about the conquest of disease.

Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that there is a position between the Government's and that of those who say that there should be no animal experiments. Many of us think that some animal experiments are necessary to try to cure otherwise incurable human diseases, but also that we could move faster forward than the Government are proposing. I hope that the Minister will withdraw the comment that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is under pressure from a lobby that is opposed to all animal experimentation.

Mr. Mellor: I realise that the hon. Lady accepts the need for some animal experiments but not for others. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made it clear that some people are opposed to all animal experiments and have campaigned on that basis.
The hon. Member for Erdington made clear the significance of the conquest of disease, and we should not


get complacent about that. Many of us can recall from family experience, as a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have done. the way in which lives were cut off in their prime through diseases which today can be vanquished. My mother had two siblings who died in infancy of diphtheria, which years ago used to kill eight children in 1,000, but now does not kill any.
We know the progress that has been made in the procedures that can be carried on in operating theatres, and in the provision of modern antibiotics, which are all effective because of the careful testing that has gone on in advance. None of us take for granted such medical advances when so much remains to be done. The hon. Member made a distinguished speech, and I look forward to taking these matters further with him in Committee.
I wish that I could say the same—because this is not a partisan matter—about the speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). If ever a speech fell below the level of expectation, the one to which he treated us did so comprehensively. However, it was rather better than it was trailed, because I was told by a distinguished veterinarian, who has been working on the Bill for three years, that the hon. Member said that the Bill was a whitewash. He is quoted in Veterinary Record as saying, with the moderation that we have come to expect from the alliance:
I will be going hell for leather to expose the Bill for what it is and to destroy it.
The hon. Gentleman's speech tonight was slightly more measured, but it was not much better.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman's speech will be read by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who is a medical practitioner, and that the right hon. Gentleman will think that it was unwise of him to be wherever he is and leave the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South to put the alliance case. If ever there was the fudge and mudge that the right hon. Member so condemns in the House, I suspect that it was in the hon. Gentleman's speech, particularly with the empty rhetorical tub-thumping that had no substance by way of a viable alternative as to where, in a sophisticated society, we strike the balance between what needs to be done and what does not.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) had a more stylish approach to the same issue and managed to steer round the more obvious pitfalls into which his less experienced hon. Friend fell. But neither of them suggested anything of which any responsible political party could feel remotely proud. If they do not think that the Bill is right, they should be capable of more than the third-rate sniping which alienated hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber tonight.

Mr. Meadowcroft: One can always tell when Ministers are hiding behind a poll, because they make this kind of attack. In the other place, 18 alliance Members took part in the debate and we should not have to spell out tonight the alternatives suggested.

Mr. Mellor: The noble Lord who spoke for the alliance in the other place recognised the worth of the amendments by not pressing any to a Division because he knew that if he did he would be alone in the Lobby. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that a cheap jibe about the polls is the answer, many in different or no political parties who have worked in harmony to produce the Bill will disagree, because he shows again that the alliance simply sees such

issues as an opportunity to exploit them to the lowest common denominator of popularism. That does not go down well. The more serious contributions are worthy of more time.
I agree with the hon. Member for Erdington about the figures in the moderate animal welfare movement. I think in particular of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association—John Seamer and David Morton—and FRAME, whose help has been invaluable, whose parliamentary group has been a constant source of pressure for change and whose chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North made an excellent speech containing some necessary detailed points. I also think of the campaign for the Reform of Animal Experiments and of Clive Hollands, for whom I have a great admiration, who has been brave in recognising that the best should never be the enemy of the good, and who, as a committed anti-vivisectionist, has striven to make the Bill achieve the consensus that it has achieved.
I also think of Lord Houghton, without whom the Bill would not have been possible. At 86 years of age, he has a remarkably agile mind and a remarkable commitment. In some darker moments when I have had to endure flack about the issue I have drawn comfort from his steadfastness. When he said at the launch of the White Paper that this was the best thing for 30 years, all those associated with the Bill took heart because we knew that he had a genuine commitment.
I should also like to mention the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry, the Chemical Industries Association and the Research Defence Society, which have given generously of their time and effort to try to strike a balance. It is in no one's interest that doctors should be impeded. It is in no one's interest that the British pharmaceutical industry—one of our successes—should be damaged in its efforts to provide the products which we and the rest of the world need. It is in no one's interest that the chemical industry's chances should be made any more difficult or that we should drive more jobs out of Britain. However, all involved recognise that they should be subject to a rigorous legal framework. That is what we have today and what we shall certainly have tomorrow under the Bill.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Drake for what she said when she set out the major steps forward in the Bill. I can deal with them only in shorthand, because of the time. The project licence for the first time gives us the opportunity to examine each project and to ask whether it is necessary, to strike a balance between a project's aim and the means by which it is to be achieved, to look at the categories of discomfort and pain inflicted on animals, and to draw down the standard so that project licences contain a more restrictive condition than is possible today.
The Bill will bring breeding establishments under control, so that at last we can nail the fear of so many people that their pets are being used in vivisection. Every normal domestic animal that is used will have to have a pedigree and its origin will be established. The breeding establishments will be properly examined.
Finally, there is a provision for constant veterinary supervision by the presence in a laboratory of a named person on whom all legal responsibility rests. An important precedent for that was created in the safety at work legislation.


The inspectorate totals 15, all of them either doctors or vets. We intend to increase the numbers, and to that end we have placed advertisements in the relevant newspapers this very week for three further inspectors. Others will need to be recruited.
I appreciate the sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) on this and other moral issues. However, he should not underestimate the need for product safety in our society. We take it for granted that the products that we use in our homes and at work are safe. I say to Opposition Members who are dubious about the Bill that they should not throw away all the health and safety at work arrangements that have been achieved. Any number of people are subjected, day in day out, to constant exposure to chemicals during the manufacture of a wide range of products. If we cannot be aware of the toxicity of those products, it will be a retrograde step: we will be playing with the health and livelihoods of many working people, which would not be right.
I commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North on the vexed question of the tests which Mobilisation and its supporters in the House think should be banned overnight. Because of the time, I shall not go through all the details. I wish to make one point about the Draize and LD50 tests. It is too easy, for what must be a sophisticated measure, to say that we intend to ban those procedures. We are doing something far more radical than that. We are not saying that we will ban 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of animal experiments, and the remainder are all right. We are saying that every animal experiment must be justified. That is a way of increasing the pressure that we have already applied, and which has led to a fall in the number of tests over a decade—5·6 million to 3·5 million last year, with a fall of 750,000 achieved during the last two years alone.
The Draize test will not be necessary for very much longer. We intend to use the project licence to ensure that it is carried out only where it has to be carried out, with all the pre-screening which will avoid the excesses which are sometimes mentioned erroneously in the Mobilisation literature. There will come a time, and it is not far removed, when full alternatives will be possible for the Draize test. However, it would be irresponsible to say that the point has been reached where there is not any case for testing any substance on the eyes. I cannot wait for the time when that test will be unnecessary.
The same is true of LD50. There are only a limited number of cases where the so-called classic LD50—if we can so dignify it—is required. We will use the project licensing system to restrict those occasions ever more tightly. The limit test and other tests pioneered by our advisory committee will have the effect of improving the standards of our testing. However, let none of us be under any illusions—toxicity testing is needed for the basic protection of men, women and children in a wide range of activities at work and in the home. Already, through FRAME and the other groups, tests are being carried out on non-animal alternatives. I hope and pray that those will be successful, but until they are no responsible Government could throw over this protection.
I shall conclude by recalling the insistent advice of Lord Houghton, that to win better protection for animals they must be put into politics, and that in politics all roads lead

to Westminster. Laboratory animals are now at Westminster for the first time in 110 years. We have an opportunity today to provide a lasting service to the cause of animal welfare and humane research, and it is on that basis that I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 28.

Division No. 78]
[1.25 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Merchant, Piers


Amess, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Tom
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Baldry, Tony
Mudd, David


Batiste, Spencer
Murphy, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Neale, Gerrard


Best, Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Nicholls, Patrick


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Norris, Steven


Blackburn, John
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Bottomley, Peter
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Pawsey, James


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Portillo, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Powell, William (Corby)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Powley, John


Bright, Graham
Proctor, K. Harvey


Brinton, Tim
Raffan, Keith


Brooke, Hon Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Bruinvels, Peter
Rhodes James, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Burt, Alistair
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Cash, William
Roe, Mrs Marion


Chapman, Sydney
Rowe, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Silvester, Fred


Cockeram, Eric
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Colvin, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Conway, Derek
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Coombs, Simon
Speed, Keith


Cope, John
Speller, Tony


Corrie, John
Spencer, Derek


Couchman, James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Stern, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Dover, Den
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Durant, Tony
Sumberg, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Terlezki, Stefan


Fallon, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Gale, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Thurnham, Peter


Gregory, Conal
Trippier, David


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hanley, Jeremy
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Hind, Kenneth
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Holt, Richard
Walden, George


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Waller, Gary


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ward, John


Jackson, Robert
Warren, Kenneth


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Watts, John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Lester, Jim
Wigley, Dafydd


Lilley, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wolfson, Mark


Lyell, Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


McCurley, Mrs Anna



Maclean, David John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mather, Carol
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Maude, Hon Francis
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Mellor, David







NOES


Alton, David
Lamond, James


Ashdown, Paddy
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Loyden, Edward


Beith, A. J.
Madden, Max


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Maynard, Miss Joan


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Meadowcroft, Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Nellist, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Penhaligon, David


Cohen, Harry
Sedgemore, Brian


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Wallace, James


Hancock, Michael



Hardy, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Bob Clay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — ANIMALS (SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES) BILL [Lords] [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Orders of the Day — ANIMALS (SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES) BILL [Lords] [WAYS AND MEANS]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees payable into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.)

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE

That the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant (Variation) Scheme 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 57), dated 15th January 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Standing Order of 16th December 1983 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on Members' Interests be amended, by leaving out Mr. Paddy Ashdown and inserting Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.—[Mr. Cope.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Acklington and Castington Prisons

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Minister has had a long evening. He has had a six-hour debate on animals to reply to, but I feel that it is necessary to detain him for half an hour on the subject of prisons and those who work in them. When the former Royal Air Force airfield at Acklington was taken over by the Home Office about 15 years ago to become a prison, the change was not universally welcomed in the surrounding area. At times, in the short history of the prison, there has been quite a lot of local concern either about escapes or the decision to introduce life prisoners into a category C prison which was at variance with the plans originally discussed with the local community.
Despite the inevitable, anxieties, the prison has undoubtedly won acceptance from the vast majority of people in the area. It provides jobs in an area of very high unemployment and prison officers and civilian employees are now a large and valued part of the community. Many prison officers are now buying their own houses and they can be found in many of the towns and villages in my constituency. Many local people are involved in part-time or voluntary activity at the prison, and prisoners have contributed to local life by making toys and equipment for children, cooking meals for pensioners and through sporting fixtures. The feasibility of putting selected life sentence prisoners into a category C prison after they have served the majority of their sentence and been assessed as suitable has been proved. I supported that decision when it was made, and I believe that it has worked satisfactorily. There are inevitably some problems and tonight's debate gives me an opportunity to raise them.
I wish to set them in the context of institutions which have an established place in the local scene and do a difficult job with the respect and understanding of the community. Out of Acklington grew Castington, a young offenders' institution which started as a wing of the adult prison but which is now a fully separate institution with its own perimeter security, its own governor and plans to extend to nearly twice its present numbers. Young offenders institutions do not at present have a security classification like that of adult prisons. That is a cause of concern to the Prison Officers' Association, but it is clear that it requires and has, a higher level of security than Acklington.
Castington's inmates are long-term prisoners. To be sentenced to a substantial term of imprisonment at 17 or 18 is the consequence of a very serious offence or offences. Castington now faces the same issue that confronted Acklington. The Home Office wants to introduce life prisoners. In Castington's case, these cannot be prisoners reaching the end of their sentences, for they will serve out the later years of their sentences in adult prisons, some of them, ironically, more secure than Castington. At present, Castington is not equipped to cope with such a change in its role and one of my objects is to seek the Minister's assurance that no such change will take place until the security and staffing is fully adequate to the needs which would be created. There are lessons to be learned from the experiences of last summer at Castington when there were serious disturbances. Those events,


which included a roof top protest, placed considerable demands on prison officers, many of whom acted with notable courage and skill to bring the problems under control.
It was also demonstrated that it was possible for an inmate to barricade his cell door and break through the cell walls before officers could get into the cell to stop him. The cells were simply not strong enough for some of the prisoners they were accommodating, let alone for some of the lifers who might be placed in them later.
It is clearly the objective of the governor and staff at Castington so to organise the regime that such disturbances are extremely unlikely to occur, and there are good signs that they are succeeding. The Journal in Newcastle has carried encouraging reports not only of the progress made but of pioneering work in which football hooligans helped to explore the causes of football violence.
However, the possibility of disruption cannot be ruled out, and precautions must be taken. Perimeter security has already been improved and steps are now being taken to prevent cells from being barricaded. A few cells have been strengthened. Much further work is necessary before the Home Office can be satisfied that the institution's admission policy can be changed, and I hope that the Minister will be clear on that point tonight.
There is anxiety that other pressures on the Department's budget such as the conversion of RAF Lindholme to prison use are pre-empting the necessary resources, but walls do not a prison make, and it is on the regime and the staff that the effectiveness of the institution depends. Until relatively recently, the running of prisons throughout the country was largely dependent on large amounts of overtime working. Both the administration of prisons and the prison officers' standard of living became dependent on overtime. The introduction of a system of overtime budgets is intended to change that pattern, but there is anxiety at both Acklington and Castington that it may lead to a restricted regime in future. The fear is greatest at Castington because the disturbances last summer gave rise to large amounts of overtime. If that overtime is counted against this year's budget, it will have a direct and drastic effect on the availability of staff to do constructive work with those in their custody. I hope that the Minister can ensure that that does not happen.
In the light of the disturbances, there is also an anxiety among Castington staff that control and restraint training should be taken by all officers, and appropriate "refresher" training at regular intervals.
Another security anxiety arises from the proposal that, as part of the policy of "civilianising" officers mess staff, there should no longer be a prison officer in charge of the shared mess which serves both Acklington and Castington. The local situation would make such a change very unwise. The mess is isolated and at a distance from both prisons: it would not be adequate for a civilian employee to have charge of the prisoners who work in the mess, particularly between mealtimes when no prison officer may be in the building. I plead with the Minister to make certain that "civilianisation" is not rigidly applied in a situation where it could pose a threat to security. There is a further anxiety about the intention of the prison Department to dispense with day duty yard patrols.

Castington and Acklington cover a wide area, and there is a strong case for the added security provided by those patrols.
Adult prisoners and young trainees need to be occupied as constructively as possible: that is the best way of promoting self-discipline both inside the prison and when a prisoner is discharged. It is, therefore, a matter for concern that there is such a large amount of unused or underused workshop accommodation at both Acklington and Castington. Only a fraction of the available workshop space is serving the purpose for which it was intended. There has been a serious decline in prison industries throughout the country: Acklington and Castington, unlike the dispersal prisons, are designed to have a much larger work and training component, and I hope that the Minister can tell us how it will be increased in future. Workshop facilities that cost millions of pounds should not be standing empty.
Another wasted facility is the purpose-built hospital at Acklington, which is still not in use. The Department has not yet succeeded in recruiting a full-time medical officer for the two prisons, and has not staffed the hospital. That means that prisoners must be taken away to Ashington hospital, and officers have to be deployed to accompany them. It is questionable whether the hospital should have been put into Acklington at all. On security grounds, there would have been a much better case for putting it within the Castington perimeter. But how long is it to remain in its present unused state?
Both institutions have excellent education facilities, which provide very good opportunities for those motivated to use them. It is sometimes suggested, however, that there needs to be more of a drive to bring basic literacy and numeracy to those who are less well motivated but whose criminality may owe something to their inability to cope with the basic requirements of modern society.
Physical education and sport are a very important part of the programme of both institutions and are especially valuable as an outlet for the energies of the young inmates as Castington. The sports facilities are envied by some of the local rural communities, which do not enjoy the extensive sports ad leisure centres so common in urban areas. I welcome the way in which disabled members of the local community have been given the opportunity to use prison sports facilities, and I hope that such ideas will be developed. I recognise that, because of the value of physical education as part of the regime, it will be a good thing if Castington could be given the chance to develop the additional hard and grass sports area for which it has suitable land within its perimeter.
There are still a large number of unoccupied houses adjoining the perimeter of the two prisons—a subject of many parliamentary questions from me in earlier years. I understand that many of the remaining properties will be cleared to make way for future development at Castington. I should welcome some clarification on the point, since keeping homes empty is undesirable and represents a further potential security problem.
It is sometimes suggested in the local community that when escapes occur, as they have in the past at Acklington, there should be a local alert, perhaps by a siren, so that suspicious persons seen in the locality can be reported. I share the view that a general alarm would be undesirable, because it would give the impression of danger when the individual who has escaped may pose no danger to the local community. However, there are ways


of alerting those whose property might be used as cover, and I hope that that sort of thing will be done. Local radio has proved helpful in that respect, spreading the information that a prisoner has escaped without giving a general sense of alarm when there may be no good reason to do so.
Recent years have seen major and unsettling changes in the prison service. The prison population nationally has continued to increase alarmingly, while the Home Office has sought with increasing difficulty to contain the prison service budget. The violence which has brought people into prison, many of them very young, must be contained inside the prison and makes the prison officer's job difficult and sometimes dangerous. Prison officers have had to take the consequences of political decisions. Many of them will not easily forget the effect of the previous Home Secretary's arbitrary decision on life sentences on lifers, who suddenly discovered that their release dates had been put back indefinitely.
The prison service has come through a period of doubt and questioning—started by the psychiatrists and criminologists—about whether there is any scope for what used to be called "reforming" the prisoners, or whether staff were simply to be engaged in containment. There is now a rather more realistic, but nevertheless positive climate in the prison service, but it has come at a time of increased budgetary restraint. There is clearly a need for greater flexibility in the ability of the local prison governor to manage the resources for which he is responsible, but officers are understandably worried that changes in established staffing practices will be used by the Home Office as an excuse for cutting resources, reducing security and locking prisoners in their cells for long periods.
I hope that by his reply tonight the Minister can demonstrate that this will not be so and that the Home Office has a firm commitment to maintaining and increasing the effectiveness of institutions which house long-term prisoners such as Acklington and Castington.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I welcome the interest which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has consistently shown in these two establishments and his acknowledgement tonight of their constructive relationship with the local community, which I also welcome. I am glad to have this opportunity to respond to the matters which he raised, and I shall try to deal with as many of them as I can in the time available. In the event that I fail to deal with all of them, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about any outstanding matters.
May I begin with Castington youth custody centre. Castington's security and control record is good. There has not been an escape from the youth custody centre since April 1983. That occasion, when three inmates escaped and were recaptured, has been the only escape since it was opened in January 1983. However, there have been several incidents. Last year, there were two short lived and passive demonstrations. In the first, 37 trainees refused to leave the association area at lock-up and remained there for about an hour. On the second occasion, 18 trainees made a similar gesture, although that one lasted for only a few minutes.
In addition, during 1985, there were 20 incidents involving 45 inmates in which cells were barricaded or

damaged. A further relatively minor case occurred on Friday. Most of them were confined to barricading the doors and damaging cell equipment, but on the night of 28 June 1985, three trainees broke through the walls of their cells and climbed on to the roof of their wing.
During 1985 there were three further occasions when inmates broke through the walls of their cells in that way. I am glad to say that there have been no more since the new year. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the courage and professionalism shown by staff in dealing with those incidents.
The strengthening of cells would seem to be called for in the light of what has happened. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the national chairman of the Prison Officers Association wrote to the Department in October, expressing his members' anxiety about the position. The Department's reply last month explained that the cell walls had been constructed of low density concrete blocks which were of the usual current standard for youth custody centres such as Castington. There have not been comparable problems on the same scale at other centres, and I do not believe that we would be justified in applying a general increase in standards because of problems at Castington. Moreover, because of the population pressures generally within the prison system we cannot contemplate the wholesale temporary removal of prisoners at Castington to carry out regrading work to the cells.
We are, and would have to be on the facts, worried about the position at Castington. We have strengthened the walls of eight cells by the application of robust steel mesh covered with concrete. We are considering the possibility of similarly upgrading a few additional cells in each wing to provide the governor with a flexible amount of accommodation in which to put troublesome trainees. I hope that that is a step in the right direction.
We are also about to embark on a programme of welding together the constituent parts of the beds in each cell and anchoring them to the floor.
In the two wings to be opened later this year, cells have been provided with doors that can open outwards to prevent barricading. That will deny inmates the lime in which to cause serious damage, let alone penetrate the cell wall. I hope that the work will go a long way towards eliminating the problems that the governor and his staff have experienced.
The current control position is that, following each incident, the appropriate disciplinary action was taken. The position is being monitored by the regional director. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the governor and the staff have devoted considerable effort to the creation of a positive relationship with the inmates. Recent months have seen reductions in offences against discipline and a more relaxed atmosphere.
Castington already keeps all its inmates fully and constructively occupied. It is in the final stages of a redevelopment scheme which, as well as increasing its population from 180 to 300, will further expand the facilities and enable additional playing fields, as well as a planned hard surface area, to be brought into use. It is expected that some of those facilities will be brought into use by the end of the year.
I shall say a brief word about the national staffing scene in reponse to what the hon. Gentleman said about it. He expressed anxiety about the effect on the establishment of the limited funds available for prison officer overtime. To put that in context, prison officer numbers, nationally, are


higher than they have ever been. They stood at 18,600 on 1 January this year. That represents and increase of about 18 per cent. since 1979. Over the same period the inmate population increased by about 12 per cent.
During the next three years—from April this year to March 1989—we plan to recruit a further 3,500 staff. Although most of those will be required to man new accommodation, some are intended to relieve pressure at existing establishments where that is justified. Despite that injection of staff, however, there remains a difference between the number of staff employed and the authorised staffing levels.
In the northern region, the shortfall between staff in post and authorised staffing levels is currently running at about 17·5 per cent. Acklington reflects that regional average. Castington, however, is staffed to within 9 per cent. of its authorised level. That favourable treatment of Castington reflects its proposed role in the handling and containment of a long-term and life sentence population.
The nationally high level of overtime working in the prison service—on average about 16 hours a week—must be seen as a major problem. We have set a cash limit on the overtime budget this year, but I must emphasise that we have not cut expenditure in cash terms. The budget, at £81·6 million, is some £5 million more than last year's spend, and a further cash increase is proposed for next year's budget.
The overtime budget has not significantly affected the regime at either Acklington or Castington. There has been somewhat less scope for local staff training than one might have wished, but nearly half of Castington's discipline staff and three quarters of those at Acklington have so far undergone the four-day course in control and restraint training.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the introduction of lifers, which is of special interest to me as I carry responsibility in the Home Office for case work on life sentence prisoners, and he expressed anxiety about their introduction at Castington. There are three main centres for young offenders who are serving sentences of custody for life, detention during Her Majesty's pleasure and detention for life. They are located at the youth custody centres at Aylesbury, Exeter and Swinfen hall, near Lichfield. It is recognised that there is a need for a young offender lifer centre in the north and we believe that Castington will be the right establishment to take on the role.
I must make it clear, however, that there are, as yet, no firm plans to transfer young offender lifers into Castington. Such a development would be preceded by very careful preparation of staff for work with this special group of young offenders. We shall not proceed until we are satisfied that Castington can properly and safely be asked to assume this function. The hon. Member may take it that we shall keep in touch with him on that so that his representations can be given their proper weight. I appreciate his sensitivity to the concerns of those who work in the prison and of his constituents who live in the surrounding area.
Acklington is a category C establishment, which means that it caters for prisoners who cannot be trusted in wholly open conditions but are not considered to pose a serious danger to the public. The level of security of prisons such as Acklington is commensurate with that judgment. In that

context, the prison's security record has been pretty good. In 1983, four prisoners escaped but were recaptured almost immediately. In 1984 there were no escapes from within the prison, although one prisoner absconded from an outside working party. In 1985, five prisoners escaped. Two were recaptured within 48 hours and the others have since been returned to custody.
It has been suggested that some arrangement for alerting the local community of an escape should be instituted. This matter has, of course, been carefully considered by the prison authorities in consultation with the police. The arrangements that are made have to find a balance between the need to alert the public to be on the look out with the need to avoid causing undue anxiety. The view that has been taken is that the local radio station provides the best medium of communication for this purpose. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assent to that. If he has any suggestions, we will be happy to consider them.
I can confirm that there are indeed plans to demolish a substantial number of the derelict houses on the perimeter after the failure of attempts to offer them to the local authority. It is sad that that did not work out, but there we are.
The hon. Member mentioned mess staffing. It is true that the prison department has recently proposed that, unless there are very strong reasons to the contrary, officers' messes should be staffed by civilian cooks. This is more economic, but that is not the only reason for making the change. It is in principle inappropriate to use a highly trained prison officer or prison auxiliary on this work. It is, indeed, highly desirable to release such officers for other duties more appropriate to their grade. It is much the same argument as that which has led to the replacement of police officers by ancillary office workers. We are pursuing a consistent policy in the law and order services. Prison officers are badly needed elsewhere. The figures that I gave earlier demonstrate that. We expect to avoid redundancies and are of course prepared to retain prison auxiliaries on mess duties when no other posts can be found for them.
The hon. Gentleman referred to his concern that inmates might in future be employed in the mess under the supervision of a civilian rather than a prison officer. We shall consider carefully the views of local management and staff on this point, but in general I do not share the Prison Officers Association's concern about this policy. Any inmates working in the mess will have been specially selected for that purpose. Civilians supervise inmates in messes and elsewhere at other establishments without difficulty. I stress that no decision has yet been taken about Acklington.

Mr. Beith: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will take careful note of what I said about the physical location of the mess and about civilians being unaided for considerable periods of time while they are supervising inmates.

Mr. Mellor: I took that point on board. That is why I stressed that no decision has yet been taken. The hon. Gentleman's point will certainly be looked at. We have a great interest in ensuring that everything goes smoothly at this establishment, that staff are not placed in jeopardy and that offenders do not abscond and make a nuisance of


themselves in the neighbourhood. We are anxious to build on the already good relationship in the neighbourhood of Acklington.
The hon. Gentleman referred to education and reported that there is concern about the balance of the education programme. I am satisfied that the programme strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of those inmates who are capable of more advanced studies and those whose educational requirements are more basic. Literacy and remedial classes are available to prisoners who are prepared to make use of them. I know that the education officer at the prison attaches great importance to identifying and encouraging such prisoners. A number of inmates are attending classes of this kind, but we cannot and would not wish to make attendance at classes by adults compulsory. The range of the educational programmes at both Acklington and Castington, and the quality of their library services, are among the best features of the two establishments.

Mr. Beith: indicated assent.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assent. He also referred to the employment of prisoners. The current employment plan is to provide some 173 industrial workplaces at Acklington: 100 in the tailoring workshop, up to 60 for an engineering or woodwork industry and 13 in the laundry. The present position is that the laundry is fully manned. Some 45 inmates are employed in the tailoring workshop and the aim is to employ the full complement of 100 inmates as soon as the current programme of recruitment workshop preparation has been completed. Prison service industries and farms are currently carrying out an investment appraisal of the engineering and woodwork industry being considered for Acklington. The outcome is likely to be known shortly. I shall let the hon. Gentleman know about that as soon as we have the details.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the current lack of employment opportunities at Acklington. It is also

the case that the Gaydon hangar is not yet fully in use, but the hon. Gentleman may be assured that the prison department is doing what it can to speed up the process of employing inmates and making the best use of the hangar. But it is quite clearly prudent to ensure that the investment of public money in prison industries at Acklington is soundly based. The investment appraisal is designed to ensure that this objective is met.
As for medical facilities, perhaps I should explain that the purpose built hospital at Acklington was designed to serve, and does serve, the populations of the two establishments, which together now hold over 600 inmates. The medical and hospital staff also serve both establishments. I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment that it has not yet been possible to bring the in-patient facility into use. Initially there were problems with the internal security and control arrangements, and more recently staffing pressures on the discipline side have meant that local management has been unable to make suitable arrangements for a night patrol in the hospital area, which is physically separate from the sleeping accommodation in the main prison. However, I understand and am happy to report that these difficulties have now been resolved. It is hoped to appoint a full-time medical officer to Acklington in the near future and that it will then be possible to set an early date for the opening of the inpatient facility to Acklington inmates, although some upgrading of physical security may be required before its use can be extended to in-patients from Castington.
Finally, it is right that I should place in perspective the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Acklington prison and Castington youth custody centre are both developing, expanding institutions. For their staff these plans afford both the prospect of challenging and worthwhile work and the means and resources with which to carry it out.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Two o' clock.